Re: Understanding doc 1.4.11, updates

I think it might be clearer to focus 1.4.11 on the *contrast 
requirement* of *whatever is offered IF it is offered at all*, and focus 
on interactional states (focus, hover, active), mandating that if color 
is the only way to differentiate focus, it must have 3:1 contrast to the 
default (and having no differential contrast requirement on hover, 
active, visited etc for the reasons Alastair has explained). I would 
then prefer to treat the requirement to make *functional* states like 
checked, expanded=true/false also visually discernable / different in a 
separate SC as proposed (mapping on 4.1.2) - see a draft at 
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/559. I fear we may try to kill two 
many birds with this stone called 1.4.11.


Am 17.12.2018 um 11:08 schrieb Alastair Campbell:
>
> Hi Jake,
>
> That’s a good example, because if you throw in a hover style as well, 
> the maroon bar of ‘selected’ and the grey bar of ‘hover’ don’t 
> contrast with each other, and it is not feasible to make them contrast 
> (especially if you add visited as a state to differentiate).
>
> > “2. States do not have to be differentiated within the component” => yes
>
> > “3. Functional / value states do require differentiation via 
> ‘adjacent’ background. “ => yes, they have, don’t they?
>
> Yes, and I think we all agree with the aim. However, how do we justify 
> that based on the current SC text?
>
> How do we differentiate the ‘functional’ states we do want to have 
> differentiation from the UI states that we don’t want to apply it to?
>
> -Alastair
>

-- 
Detlev Fischer
Testkreis
Werderstr. 34, 20144 Hamburg

Mobil +49 (0)157 57 57 57 45

http://www.testkreis.de
Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites



---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus