RE: Poor contrast on focus indicator: SC 2.4.7 failure?

What is "text"?
According to Merriam-Webster it is:
: the original words of a piece of writing or a speech
: the words that make up the main part of a book, magazine, newspaper, Web site, etc.
: a book or other piece of writing; especially : one that is studied

Which leads to asking, what are "words"?
Using Merriam-Webster again, part 2b(1) of the definition states they are:
2 b (1) :  a written or printed character or combination of characters representing a spoken word <the number of words to a line> -sometimes used with the first letter of a real or pretended taboo word prefixed as an often humorous euphemism <the first man to utter the f word on British TV - Time> <we were not afraid to use the d word and talk about death - Erma Bombeck>

And that leads to asking, what is a "character"?
Back to Merriam-Webster again, where part 1 b states:
1 b :  a graphic symbol (as a hieroglyph or alphabet letter) used in writing or printing

Can it then be concluded that an icon is text?

Thanks,
Kurt Mattes
VP - eCAT ADA Controls | JPMorgan Chase

From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2015 3:40 PM
To: Phill Jenkins
Cc: Sailesh Panchang; IG - WAI Interest Group List list
Subject: Re: Poor contrast on focus indicator: SC 2.4.7 failure?

thanks

PS   Also note that WCAG only applies to TEXT and not to contrast of anything else.

gregg

----------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden
gregg@raisingthefloor.org<mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org>



On May 26, 2015, at 2:30 PM, Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com<mailto:pjenkins@us.ibm.com>> wrote:

I thought I read that Gregg already answered your question:

Gregg said: "... But we were unable to get [Poor contrast of the focus indicator ] into WCAG - partly because it was seen as a User Agent issue and partly because it can be addressed by CSS or AT - so it was not seen as an author issue.   And I had to agree - it was important but the author was not the primary place to solve it (and not the best - since it would vary from page to page if done by the author).   However, when the author did things in flash or other places where they created their own focus indicators - I'm not sure how others would know where the focus was - unless they exposed it.  So maybe "programmatically determinable" would be good."

Since WCAG 2.4.7 is about not-hiding the focus indicator, and 1.4.3 doesn't apply to controls, strictly speaking it would "pass" the authors responsibility, but would fail the end-users needs when the browser didn't meet UAAG 1.3.1.  Although I agree it should be recommended as a best practice that icons, controls, and focus indicators should also have a default minimum contrast of 4.5 to 1 for AA conformance.  Remember it gets a little tricky, or there needs to be special consideration for disabled controls.  For example, I typically recommend a 3 to 1 contrast for disabled text on controls, and many user experience (UX) professionals do not recommend that the focus indicator even stop on disabled controls when tabbing.

References:
WCAG 2.4.7<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#navigation-mechanisms-focus-visible> Focus Visible: Any keyboard operable user interface has a mode of operation where the keyboard focus indicator is visible. (Level AA)Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.7<http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/navigation-mechanisms-focus-visible.html#navigation-mechanisms>
        F55: Failure of Success Criteria 2.1.1, 2.4.7, and 3.2.1 due to using script to remove focus when focus is received<http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20140916/F55#navigation-mechanisms>
        F78: Failure of Success Criterion 2.4.7 due to styling element outlines and borders in a way that removes or renders non-visible the visual focus indicator<http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20140916/F78#navigation-mechanisms>

WCAG 1.4.3<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#visual-audio-contrast-contrast> Contrast Minimum: The visual presentation of text<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#textdef> and images of text<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#images-of-textdef> has a contrast ratio<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#contrast-ratiodef> of at least 4.5:1. (Level AA)Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.3<http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/visual-audio-contrast-contrast.html#content-structure-separation>

UAAG 1.3.1 Highlighted Items: The user can specify that the following classes be highlighted<http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG20/#def-highlight> so that each is uniquely distinguished: (Level A)

  *   Selection
  *   Active keyboard focus<http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG20/#def-active-input-focus> (indicated by focus cursors and/or text cursors)
  *   Recognized enabled input elements (distinguished from disabled elements)
  *   Recently visited links
  *   Found search results

____________________________________________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins,
IBM Accessibility



From:        Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com<mailto:sailesh.panchang@deque.com>>
To:        Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>>
Cc:        Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org<mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org>>, Wayne Dick <waynedick@knowbility.org<mailto:waynedick@knowbility.org>>, IG - WAI Interest Group List list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>>
Date:        05/26/2015 10:49 AM
Subject:        Re: Poor contrast on focus indicator: SC 2.4.7 failure?
________________________________



Should this be documented as a failure then?
Sailesh


On 5/26/15, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>> wrote:
>> But consider a case where the default focus indicator is passable. Now if
>> the content author styles the background / foreground colors in a manner
>> that introduces poor contrast and as a result, the focus indicator is no
>> longer clear. It is not the browser's fault but a CSS / author-introduced
>> issue. So is it alright to fail poor contrast on the focus indicator under
>> SC 2.4.7?
>
> Yes definitely in my opinion.
>
> Jonathan


This transmission may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law.  If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED.  If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format.  Although this transmission and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by JPMorgan Chase & Co., its subsidiaries and affiliates (collectively, "JPMC"), as applicable, for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.  Please note that any electronic communication that is conducted within or through JPMC's system is subject to interception, monitoring, review, retention and external production; may be stored or otherwise processed in countries other than the country in which you are located; and will be treated in accordance with JPMC's policies and applicable laws and regulations.