Re: Resolving 1.4.11

Thanks Katie, just to follow up, and further comment on my own thread I can live with the SC as proposed. It is progressive. 
Thanks 
Josh 
InterAccess - Accessible UX
-------- Original message --------From: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com> Date: 31/05/2018  14:16  (GMT+00:00) To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> Cc: Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Subject: Re: Resolving 1.4.11 
Josh, I personally completely agree with you. But I also feel I would like the Low Vision Task Forces decision on this. And hope they do not feel over-powered by the opinion of others in the main WG.
On Thu, May 31, 2018, 9:10 AM Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Andrew
On Wed, May 30, 2018, 11:12 PM Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:








Katie,
The Low Vision Task Force is meeting tomorrow and will make sure that the members register their opinions on this CFC and will communicate the overall opinion of the TF.
 


Thanks,


AWK


 


Andrew Kirkpatrick


Group Product Manager, Accessibility


Adobe 


 


akirkpat@adobe.com


http://twitter.com/awkawk

From: Katie GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>

Date: Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 16:56

To: Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>

Cc: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Subject: Re: Resolving 1.4.11


 


Wilco, 

 


I did NOT +1 this or the CFC as I feel this has changed the SC too much, and I asked for a Consensus Opinion for the Low Vision Task Force before this kind of change is accepted. I am with you!













* katie * 

Katie Haritos-Shea 

Principal ICT Accessibility Architect, 

W3C Advisory Committee Rep for Knowbility 

WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy, IAAP
 CPACC+WAS = CPWA

Cell: 703-371-5545 | ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton,
 VA | LinkedIn
 Profile


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 Wed, May 30, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
 wrote:


> I admit the SC now has a lot of room for interpretation from evaluators, but that's better than forcing a border around everything.


 


I'm sorry but that's just heartbreaking to read. I find it hard to believe that everyone that +1'ed this change even agrees on what "required to identify" means, let alone the rest of the world
 who will have to work with it. This kind of "compromisy" language is why we tell developers not to read WCAG. Leave it to the experts. I was genuinely disappointed when I read this thread last night. This was the one SC in WCAG 2.1 that I think could have
 some significant parts of it automated. Designers & developers using any sort of tooling could have known about this issue. Now we're down to just those that work for an organisation that can afford to have an expert look at it.


 


I'm not going to downvote it - I know that you're all correct about this... but it did make me sad. And I do think it's worth taking more care to look at the "accessibility" of WCAG testing,
 in the other sense of the word the next time around.


 


W





 

On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 8:57 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
 wrote:



> 
Would people would fail it for lacking visual identifying characteristics on an input? Or does the lack of
 visual information for all users about the input mean this is a design issue, not an accessibility issue?










I don't think we can say visual cues are necessary to pass this SC, but if  cues *are* used that are
 required to identify the component, then they need to be 3:1.









The Funka example ... the placement of the buttons is consistent with a menu and they are laid out
 as a nav menu would be, so under our discussion of interpretation yesterday I would not fail it...









I admit the SC now has a lot of room for interpretation from evaluators, but that's better than forcing
 a border around everything.












Cheers,

David MacDonald
 
CanAdapt Solutions
 Inc.
Tel:  613.235.4902
LinkedIn 


twitter.com/davidmacd
GitHub
www.Can-Adapt.com
  
  Adapting the web to all users

            Including those with disabilities


 


If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy
 policy







 



On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 2:20 PM, Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>
 wrote:

I wasn't sure whether to bring this up on the CFC or in this thread, but I would like to understand whether the first example you
 gave, the KnowbilitySearch
 mechanism, would be considered to pass the rewording of 1.4.11.

To me, this lacks any visual indication that it is an input field. It is indistinguishable from the links immediately below it. The new SC wording
 states "Visual information required to identify user interface components" needs to meet a 3:1 ratio.

Would people would fail it for lacking visual identifying characteristics on an input? Or does the lack of visual information for
all users about the input mean this is a design issue, not an accessibility issue?

I also want to understand whether folks think Funka's questions about their buttons have been resolved with this new change. Is each button's shape, defined by a flat colour,
 part of the visual information required to ID each as a button?

Is it up to the tester to make that call, and thus decide whether the button color needs to meet 3:1?



We just had specific questions on a call here at IBM about some new low-contrast UI components, and whether we had leeway to fail them with the
 new wording or had to find some other means of convincing the designers to rethink the components.



Michael Gower

IBM Accessibility

Research



1803
 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC  V8T
 5C3

gowerm@ca.ibm.com

cellular: (250) 661-0098 *  fax:
 (250) 220-8034







From:
 
      Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>

To:        WCAG
 <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Date:        2018-05-26
 03:46 PM

Subject:        Resolving
 1.4.11



 
AGWG’ers,
 
**WARNING – lengthy but important and time-critical email!**
 
We have a few concerns raised about 1.4.11 Non-text contrast:
 
1.        Concern
 from Funka (see Word doc attachment at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2018May/0001.html)
 that the Color limitations for buttons with text on a colored background are too limiting. People either won’t be able to use yellow or will need to use an extra border and that will be unpopular for designers. This is the same issue as the concern about boundaries
 in Issue 914: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/914.

2.        Does the
 hover state indicator need to have 3:1? (Issue 913: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/913)
 
So, what do we do? I think that it helps to look at a bunch of examples:
 
As a reminder, this is the SC text:

1.4.11
The visual
presentationof
 the following have a contrast
 ratio of at least 3:1 against adjacent color(s):
User Interface Components
Visual information used to indicate
statesand
 boundaries of user
 interface components, except for inactive components or where the appearance of
 the component is determined by the user agent and not modified by the author;
Graphical Objects
Parts of graphics required to understand the content, except when a particular presentation of graphics is
essentialto
 the information being conveyed.
 
 
1.        Knowbility’s
 search box. There is 4.5:1 text that indicates that there is something for the user to activate. It is a search box and when you click on it the placeholder text shifts to the left and exposes the full area of the input.
 


 
2.        Github’s
 tab interface. It is pretty clear which tab has the selected state because of the red accent, but there is definitely not 3:1 contrast between the background colors of “code” and “issues”, nor is the line between these 3:1.


 
3.        Github
 buttons. For the “unwatch” button, the contrast between the inside of the button and the outside is 1.08:1, and between the border line and the outside background is 1.62:1. The contrast between the unwatch text and the little triangle that indicates the drop
 down is 13.79:1.

4.        Github
 buttons #2. The contrast everywhere is sufficient except in the thin border line around the not-currently-selected items.

5.        New WAI
 site. The difference in contrast between a hovered item and a non-hovered item in the nav is 1:40:1, but there is a high-contrast underline that is also part of the hover.

6.        CNN. Contrast
 of hovered and non-hovered text is greater than 4.5:1. Contrast between the hovered and non-hovered text is 1.84:1.

 
7.        Adobe.
 The light gray background appears on hover and the tiny little triangle appears. The text has sufficient contrast in hover and non-hover states, but the hover background and triangle don’t.
 

 
8.        LevelAccess
 – high-contrast throughout.
 

 
9.        Funka.
 Active/selected tab shows sufficient contrast for state. The non-selected tabs don’t use color to indicate the boundaries.

 
10.        Funka
 Search. The three items in the top nav – the left two don’t use color to indicate the boundary. The right button does but the contrast isn’t 3:1.

11.        Funka
 search open. Once the search button is open, everything seems to have suffient 4.5/3:1 contrast.

 
12.        Material
 design. Text fields come in two forms. The example on the left has a field background that is less than 3:1 with the background, but the line marking the bottom boundary of the field is 3.28:1 on the background. For the triangle in the drop down the ratio
 is 3.02:1 relative to the field background.  On the right, the border has a 3.64:1 ratio to the background, but it goes all the way around.

 
13.        Material
 design selection. The selected item on the left has a greater than 3:1 ratio for the checked/unchecked box, but the purple background is not 3:1. On the right, the purple activated color has >6:1 contrast against the light purple and >7:1 against the white,
 but the purple background is less than 3:1 against the white.

 
14.        GoFundMe
 donate page: The “your name” label text (not properly labeled) is >4.5:1, but the field border and placeholder text are less than 3:1.

15.        Buttons
 with specific boundaries – contrast between states is 1.75:1, so to some people this just looks like one green area.

 
16.        Facebook
 marketplace active area indicator. The greatest contrast is the whitish background of groups and the thin border between that and the light grey background. 1.22:1 contrast.

 
17.        Bootstrap
 checkbox. The checkbox is 1.30:1 contrast relative to the background. 

https://getbootstrap.com/docs/4.1/components/forms/#inlineFormCustomSelect
 
 
 
Interpretation:
My interpretation of the SC, and what I believe that the WG intended is that:
1.        Visual
 information that is important to identifying the state or existence (boundary) needs to be at least 3:1.
2.        All visual
 aspects of a UI Component at not required to meet 3:1, only if it is required to identity the state or existence of the control.
3.        For some
 components, text that is 4.5:1 is entirely sufficient to meet the requirements of 1.4.11.

a.        Are we
 requiring a full boundary around links (which are UI Components)? I don’t believe so.
b.        Are we
 ok with a set of tabs like in example #9 above, or does each tab need a full boundary to indicate the click area? I believe so.
4.        If a color
 is less than 3:1, you need to pretend that it doesn’t exist at all and assess whether the component passes based on other information.

a.        Compare
 the same set of tabs in example #9 and consider whether it is less accessible if the non-active tabs have a pale color background.

5.        Hover
 is covered, but not relative to the component’s own non-hover state. What is covered is that the hover state needs to meet the 3:1 ratio for any non-text content. This means that if there is an icon in a button that fades out when hovered, it would fail (just
 like is the case for 1.4.3 if text in a hovered button fades on hover). 
 
With my interpretation the examples above are rated:
1.        Pass
2.        Borderline
 fail – perhaps an uncomfortable pass?
3.        Pass
4.        Pass
5.        Pass
6.        Pass
7.        Pass
8.        Pass
9.        Pass
10.        Pass
11.        Pass
12.        Pass
 – the right side example passes easily. The left side, with the underline border is, I think, an uncomfortable pass. Like a lined paper form, people can figure out the rough size of the fields by proximity and spacing, so one line is minimally sufficient.
13.        Pass
14.        Is interesting
 – this example clearly fails, but if the control was properly associated with the label would that help since that creates a clickable region that has sufficient contrast and then the control becomes more visible when focused because of the focus rectangle
 or input carat?
15.        Fail
 – the contrast for the boundary is particularly significant in this situation.
16.        Fail
 – the contrast for the selected state. This is an example of communicating information by color alone and the contrast doesn’t make up for the color.
17.        Fail
 - Similar to #14. Some might argue that if the label is properly associated that this makes the text label and image part of one control and therefore ok, and we should be clear about that in a technique or failure.


 
If you find that you are agreeing that my interpretation reflects the intent of the Working Group, or that you are disagreeing that it reflects
 the intent of the Working Group, please say so.
 
I have a pull request that implements changes in the Understanding document in line with this:
https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/943/files?utf8=✓&diff=split
 
Is there a downside?
One of the comments we received requested that we implement a requirement for a thicker boundary around components. This would unquestionably
 help people, but also creates problems in that we are specifying UI Components, including links and other interactive controls. Are we requiring that individual items within a select/drop down show clear boundaries since each is a separate clickable region?
 Both of these come into play if the strict interpretation of this SC is the intent of the group.
 
I believe that we need to be unified and clear about this SC’s interpretation, and soon!
 
AWK
 
 




 











 



--









Wilco Fiers


Senior Accessibility Engineer - Co-facilitator WCAG-ACT - Chair Auto-WCAG