RE: [request for feedback] markup with request for changes on the image representing a correct example

Thank you Rain! I will forward this on to the designer.
Jennie

Jennie Delisi
Accessibility Analyst | Office of Accessibility
Minnesota IT Services | Partners in Performance
658 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55155
O: 651-201-1135
Information Technology for Minnesota Government | mn.gov/mnit<http://mn.gov/mnit>
[Minnesota IT Services Logo]
[Facebook logo]<https://www.facebook.com/MN.ITServices>[LinkedIn logo]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/minnesota-it-services/>[Twitter logo]<https://twitter.com/mnit_services>

From: Rain Michaels <rainb@google.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 12:02 PM
To: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Subject: [request for feedback] markup with request for changes on the image representing a correct example

This message may be from an external email source.
Do not select links or open attachments unless verified. Report all suspicious emails to Minnesota IT Services Security Operations Center.

________________________________
Hello,

I've attached an image that marks up a few recommended requests for edits to the image representing a "correct" example that can be used to illustrate the guidelines.

Per our action item in our meeting today, please provide feedback by the end of day tomorrow (Feb. 12) so that the designer has time to work on revisions.

My notes in text-only format:

  1.  Main Nav Links:
The pattern under the links themselves may make it difficult for some individuals with visual processing, reading, and sensory challenges to easily read these link names.
The links themselves would benefit from increased prominence, size, and clarity as the important links, and as five distinct elements.
  2.  Search Field:
The presentation of the search label and icon next to the field itself feels visually overwhelming, making it difficult to see the field as being connected to the search label.
For cognitive, it may not be clear how to submit the search (the user would have to know to press “return/enter” and may not).

  3.  Search Field + Cart:
For cognitive understanding, it may be difficult to understand that the cart is completely separate from the search field

  4.  Magnolia Flower Shop:
It is unclear if this is meant to represent a link, or just be emphasized text, since it has a different color.
If it is a link, it needs more affordances, such as an underline.
If it is not a link, consider avoiding using the same color that is used for the main nav links as the color for emphasis.
Consider visually clarifying what this represents.

  5.  Typography:
Increase line height to support readers with visual processing challenges or reading disabilities
Consider a font that has more letter spacing, and maybe also consider a font that uses “a” (without the hat) instead of “a” (with the hat) for the A, such as Poppins

  6.  Colors:
The white text on the blue button has a contrast ratio of 2.93:1, which doesn’t meet the desired 4.5:1 or bare minimum of 3:1 for 18pt text, and so this should be darkened.

  7.  Colors:
The white text on pink background is a ratio of 3.37:1, not the recommended minimum of 4.5:1

  8.  Subscribe form:
Many users with reading disabilities report difficulty with italic typography.
For cognitive support, consider making the “subscribe” instruction and the field a more visually connected element that is distinguishable as a separate unit of content from the Social element.
Also for cognitive support, it is not clear to the user how they submit their email address once it is entered. Consider adding a button.