Re: 2.4.7 Focus Visible

Hi Marc,

I have still see no reasonable explaination.Sorry to say it. An advisory
would not contradict the wording of either 2.4.7. or 2.4.3, there is also
ample scope to apply an advisory under the criteria. It seems to me that
people have take an ideological stance against sound reason. I made the
point to Partrick outright that visually impaired users would not benefit
from being forced to use the keyboard and that 2.4.7 and 2.4.3 were bad UX
for the visually impaired, his reply

"I don't dispute that"

So perhaps you could enlighten me as to the point of something that that is
not disputed as being pointless.


On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 10:50 AM Marc Haunschild (Accessibility Consulting)
<marc.haunschild@accessibility.consulting> wrote:

> Hi Michael,
>
> I understand and support your desire to get a visual feedback for users
> that use the mouse to interact with the UI.
>
> But you’ve got all the arguments, why this might not become an advisory
> technique.
>
> Please don’t blame the messenger for the message. Patrick and others gave
> you every information you might want to consider (or not) before suggesting
> anything.
>
> My mail about designers that complain about their own designs was just a
> sign of my general frustration hearing this complaint for decades now.
>
> --
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen
>
> Marc Haunschild
> https://Accessibility.Consulting
>
> Am 13.07.2023 um 00:03 schrieb Michael Livesey <mike.j.livesey@gmail.com>:
>
> 
> Hi John,
>
> I didn't misunderstand, all AA rules will by definition of WCAG criteria
> fulfil A rules. The point I was making was that keyboard only focus visible
> should have been an A level rule only. Thus, if a designer decided to
> remove all focus visible except for keyboard use, they would not fulfil the
> prestigious AA standard, and thus would not pass disability legislation.
> And one could say, why should they pass disability legislation when making
> accessibility worse.
>
> > As I read this thread, it strikes me that you've tried to force your
> opinion/thoughts here via a number of different approaches, and each
> approach has been flawed - which Patrick has noted. I'm sorry you are
> offended that his counter-points to your attempts > continue to fail, but
> it's not Patrick's fault - he's telling it as it is.
>
> I have asked one simple question. Should visually impaired users be forced
> to use the device that is least accessible for them, the keyboard, to gain
> visual accessibility for focus a standard that is specifically aimed at
> visually impaired users? That is in effect the upshot, or potential upshot,
> of 2.4.7 as is currently stands. It would be like bringing in a standard
> for cars that all wheelchair adapted vehicles passed the legislation by
> having a foot pedal accelerator.
>
> I am simply surprised by the answers I have received, illogical and flawed
> as they are, not offended, (albeit I am offended by abuse). And no one has
> really given a reason as to what the problem is with issuing an Advisory to
> at least make things better. It was argued that advisories are pointless,
> yet the WCAG documents states -  *They are often very helpful to some
> users, and may be the only way that some users can access some types of
> content. *I agree there have been a number of approaches arguing
> vehemently against a change but none it seems has been based on fact or
> logic.
>
> And now we have the checkbox/radio control issue that requires the use of
> focus (illogical to solve using focus-visible and would fail 2.4.7) - see
> the recommended by accessible IT Illinois Edu
>
>
> https://accessibleit.disability.illinois.edu/courses/aria-intro/slide23.html
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 9:07 PM John Foliot <john@foliot.ca> wrote:
>
>> Michael writes:
>>
>> >  The difference between A and AA has a legal difference in that AA is
>> the legal minimum as set out by equalities legislation in most
>> jurisdictions for most public sector (charity, educational, government)
>> sites.
>>
>> I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the legal requirements
>> here: pretty much every legislation that references WCAG demands both A and
>> AA conformance. Meeting ALL of the AA Success Criteria and not meeting a A
>> level SC still means you are non-compliant to the legislated requirements:
>> when entities write "AA conformance" they are actually (shorthand) stating
>> both A and AA conformance.
>>
>> >  It is a mid-level target, AA is regarded as a prestigious level.
>>
>> Say what now? A "prestigious" level? What is that, and who has made that
>> determination?
>>
>> I think now you sir are arguing to make an argument, and plugging-in
>> presumptions and assertions that have no factual basis. There are no
>> "targets" in WCAG 2.x, there are Success Criteria (SC), and a Conformance
>> Model <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#conformance> that states you must
>> successfully meet all of the Success Criteria at one of three levels: you
>> must meet *all of the A SC* to be WCAG A conformant, you must meet *all
>> of the A and AA SC to be WCAG AA conformant,* and you must meet *all of
>> the A, AA, and AAA Success Criteria to be WCAG AAA conformant*.
>> Suggesting anything different is incorrect.
>>
>> >  I named checked you [Patrick] because you have been pretty much the
>> voice constantly attacking this proposal.
>>
>> As I read this thread, it strikes me that you've tried to force your
>> opinion/thoughts here via a number of different approaches, and each
>> approach has been flawed - which Patrick has noted. I'm sorry you are
>> offended that his counter-points to your attempts continue to fail, but
>> it's not Patrick's fault - he's telling it as it is.
>>
>>  As my long-time colleague and friend has noted, if you want to propose a
>> new Advisory Technique, feel free to do so. I would, however, caution you
>> in advance that it will likely NOT be taken up any time soon - I suspect
>> most of the group will consider this a low-priority suggestion. The WCAG
>> Working Group is anxiously working to release WCAG 2.2 A.S.A.P. (it's late
>> to delivery already), and then turn their hands to getting back to (down
>> to?) WCAG 3 (where I will suggest debating the nuanced interpretation of a
>> WCAG 2.x SC is counter-productive). So their sense of urgency in reviewing
>> and debating a newly proposed Advisory Technique is likely quite low.
>>
>> JF
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 4:52 PM Michael Livesey <mike.j.livesey@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The difference between A and AA has a legal difference in that AA is the
>>> legal minimum as set out by equalities legislation in most jurisdictions
>>> for most public sector (charity, educational, government) sites.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 9:28 PM Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don’t really want to get involved in this back and forth, but am
>>>> pointing out that the A/AA distinction is for all intents and purposes
>>>> meaningless.  This is because all standards drawing on WCAG seem to include
>>>> both A and AA (with a couple cherry picking exclusions for a couple of
>>>> thorny specific SCs).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You’ll hear some conceptual arguments that failing an A is worse than a
>>>> AA, but I’ve never seen evidence of that enter into procurement decisions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We had moved Focus Visible from AA to A in the first drafts of 2.2 to
>>>> make space for a new Focus Appearance at AA, but when that hit the shoals
>>>> during testing and went to AAA, the WG pushed Focus Visible back to AA
>>>> again, because we didn’t have a new AA and whether it was A or AA was
>>>> deemed immaterial by many (so why force checkers to have to move it?).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I concur with Juliette’s last sentiment that this discussion has
>>>> probably run its course. WG members can look at the arguments in the thread
>>>> to inform their votes on changes to the Understanding document.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From: *Michael Livesey <mike.j.livesey@gmail.com>
>>>> *Date: *Tuesday, July 11, 2023 at 1:00 PM
>>>> *To: *Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
>>>> *Cc: *w3c-wai-ig@w3.org <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
>>>> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: 2.4.7 Focus Visible
>>>>
>>>> Just a additional correction to your post so that other readers are not
>>>> mislead >> WCAG sets a baseline lowest limit of what sites must do in order
>>>> to comply. WCAG 2. 4. 7 is AA rated. It is not the baseline lowest limit at
>>>> all. It is a
>>>>
>>>> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
>>>>
>>>> *This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender *
>>>>
>>>> You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
>>>>
>>>>   *  Report Suspicious  *
>>>> <https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/PjiDSg!12-vrJEwpjW0FW67lIkq4SZfFDuvzROyOjxfYJVRh-K16PDJu_8Pz_AiKAs8ogkdB3OSEOCXcal0sHsby9EAjSpFcNZwhk3c8hmhGNGb9IGUFniWPNkOwumKTYA6MDQ$>  ‌
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
>>>>
>>>> Just a additional correction to your post so that other readers are not
>>>> mislead
>>>>
>>>> >> WCAG sets a baseline lowest limit of what sites must do in order to
>>>> comply.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> WCAG 2.4.7 is AA rated. It is not the baseline lowest limit at all. It
>>>> is a mid-level target, AA is regarded as a prestigious level. I wouldn't
>>>> have an issue if keyboard only focus was rated "A" and there was an
>>>> additional criteria at AA and AAA that required more extensive compliance.
>>>> But we are talking about obliterating focus-visible and still maintaining
>>>> AA accreditation here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Patrick H. Lauke
>>>>
>>>> https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
>>>> https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux
>>>> https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> *John Foliot* |
>> Senior Industry Specialist, Digital Accessibility |
>> W3C Accessibility Standards Contributor |
>>
>> "I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
>> Pascal "links go places, buttons do things"
>>
>