Re: CFC - Graphics Contrast

+1

JF

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com> wrote:

> +1 to Graphics contrast SC
>
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 6:09 PM, Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> +1 to the Graphics Contrast SC
>>
>> ** katie **
>>
>> Katie Haritos-Shea
>>
>> Senior Accessibility SME (WCAG/Section 508/ADA)
>>
>> 703-371-5545 <(703)%20371-5545>
>>
>> ryladog@gmail.com
>>
>> People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did,
>> but people will never forget how you made them feel.......
>>
>> Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to
>> dictate where we are going.
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Jonathan Avila <
>> jon.avila@levelaccess.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hover on contrast of text is already covered under SC 1.4.3 per this
>>> group.  A user with magnification may be using a pointing device and needs
>>> to be able to see the content under the pointing device in sufficient
>>> contrast.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The minimum contrast success criterion (1.4.3) applies to text in the
>>> page, including placeholder text and text that is shown when a pointer is
>>> hovering over an object or when an object has keyboard focus. If any of
>>> these are used in a page, the text needs to provide sufficient contrast. (
>>> https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/visual-audio-con
>>> trast-contrast.html)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jonathan.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jonathan Avila
>>>
>>> Chief Accessibility Officer
>>>
>>> *Level Access, inc.* (formerly SSB BART Group, inc.)
>>>
>>> jon.avila@levelaccess.com
>>>
>>> 703.637.8957 <(703)%20637-8957> (Office)
>>>
>>> Visit us online: Website <http://www.levelaccess.com/> | Twitter
>>> <https://twitter.com/LevelAccessA11y> | Facebook
>>> <https://www.facebook.com/LevelAccessA11y> | LinkedIn
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/level-access> | Blog
>>> <http://www.levelaccess.com/blog/>
>>>
>>> *Looking to boost your accessibility knowledge? Check out our free
>>> webinars!* <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/webinars/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The information contained in this transmission may be attorney
>>> privileged and/or confidential information intended for the use of the
>>> individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the
>>> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,
>>> distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* James Nurthen [mailto:james.nurthen@oracle.com]
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, November 16, 2017 11:32 AM
>>> *To:* w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>>> *Subject:* Re: CFC - Graphics Contrast
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No it would not. 1.4.1 does not mention the word state and include a
>>> definition which includes hover. Hover does not fit into the things which
>>> fail 1.4.1
>>>
>>> Take for example the page https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTA
>>> NDING-WCAG20/visual-audio-contrast-without-color.html
>>>
>>> There are contents, intro, Previous and Next buttons at the top of the
>>> page. The only difference when they are hovered is the background color.
>>>
>>> The background color is #dde and the hover background color is #aae
>>>
>>> The ratio between these is 1.6:1
>>>
>>> I would not fail this page and I object to any SC which would fail this.
>>> My current reading of this new SC along with the definition of state
>>> proposed would and hence I object.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/16/2017 7:54 AM, Repsher, Stephen J wrote:
>>>
>>> Adding to what Alastair is saying, I’m confused by the objection
>>> because, as you pointed out, using color alone to differentiate between
>>> hover and non-hover would be a violation of 1.4.1.  Only when the 2 states
>>> are adjacent and touching would this SC come into play, but the 3:1 ratio
>>> requirement is the same.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com
>>> <acampbell@nomensa.com>]
>>> *Sent:* Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:03 AM
>>> *To:* James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com>
>>> <james.nurthen@oracle.com>
>>> *Cc:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>>> *Subject:* RE: CFC - Graphics Contrast
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > Requiring hover to have sufficient contrast ratio to non-hover states
>>> has no accessibility requirements behind it as far as I know and would
>>> unnecessarily limit color choices in an already limited palette.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi James,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don’t think that was discussed directly, but in order for that to be
>>> an issue the controls in different states would have to be adjacent, i.e.
>>> touching. Even without a mention of states, I think that would be an issue
>>> in current WCAG conformance.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There was some discussion about whether ‘existing’ was a state, and
>>> people thought that wasn’t clear so ‘boundaries’ was added:
>>>
>>> “Visual information used to indicate states and boundaries of active
>>> user interface components”
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (Still with the intent that if it isn’t there, you don’t have to add
>>> something.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Does that help?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -Alastair
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards, James
>>>
>>> James Nurthen | Principal Engineer, Accessibility
>>> Phone: +1 650 506 6781 <+1%20650%20506%206781> | Mobile: +1 415 987 1918
>>> <+1%20415%20987%201918> | Video: james.nurthen@oracle.com
>>> Oracle Corporate Architecture
>>> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=500+Oracle+Parkway+%7C+Redwood+City,+CA+94065&entry=gmail&source=g>
>>> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help
>>> protect the environment
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Wilco Fiers*
> Senior Accessibility Engineer - Co-facilitator WCAG-ACT - Chair Auto-WCAG
>



-- 
John Foliot
Principal Accessibility Strategist
Deque Systems Inc.
john.foliot@deque.com

Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion