Re: Proposed wordsmithing for Contrast (Minimum) on interactive elements

Hi Glenda,

Good stuff, picking holes in the 3px definition helps me to see what people understand by it.

In the examples from the other SC, I had been using ‘thicker lines’ as including blocks of colour, not just lines/borders. E.g. the email icon is much more than 3 x 3px, so qualifies as ‘thicker’, but it is not a line/border.

Hmm, maybe the term ‘thicker line’ needs to be thicker indicator? Or just ‘thicker’? Or larger?

An outline can be thicker, but a background change or icon (of sufficient contrast) should also be covered by:


·         Larger indicator: where the minimum width of the stroke, border, or indicator is at least 3px wide;

To me ‘indicator’ could be a border, background or an icon.

I had avoided saying ‘3 x 3px’ as it implies a 3x3px block is ok, which isn’t quite right, what we’re aiming for is a regular size icon whose parts are not thinner than that.

The other aspect of ‘medium’ that put me off was is that it implies not too thin, but also not too thick. In the case of a background change, that is very thick/large, so I was using the –er in ‘larger’… to says it can be much bigger than the minimum.
Is that just me?

Cheers,

-Alastair


From: Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com>
Date: Tuesday, 15 November 2016 at 17:10
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>, LVTF - low-vision-a11y <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Proposed wordsmithing for Contrast (Minimum) on interactive elements

Alastair,  et al

My concern with removing medium indicator is related to selected indicators.  Many selected indicators may not be a "line" at all.  It may be a symbol (like an arrow) or a background color (in the shape of a rectangle)....so I think it is important that we not just give a 3px requirement in one direction...but a 3px by 3px requirement (a square area).

So...for the initial proposal to the full WCAG working group...I'd like to leave medium border and medium indicator in for now.  Once the larger WCAG WG groks what we are discussing..then we can wordsmith....or at least that is my suggestion for how to approach this.

Are you okay with that, for now?
Glenda

glenda sims    |   team a11y lead   |    deque.com<http://deque.com>    |    512.963.3773

web for everyone. web on everything. -  w3 goals

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 4:06 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:
Hi Glenda,

I was hoping we could keep it simple with regards to the thicker/medium aspects, as they are saying essentially the same thing.

If people didn’t understand ‘line’ to include border / indicators, could we say:

  *   thicker lines: where the minimum width of the stroke, border or indicator is at least 3px;

And drop the medium border/indicator?

For the “temporary exception”, this seems to be something that would apply across many SCs, including the current contrast ones and use of color.

Rather than putting it in one SC when it should apply to many, can we propose to add it to the conformance requirements? https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#conformance-reqs


Thanks,

-Alastair

From: Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com<mailto:glenda.sims@deque.com>>
Date: Tuesday, 15 November 2016 at 04:36
To: Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu<mailto:jimallan@tsbvi.edu>>
Cc: LVTF - low-vision-a11y <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Proposed wordsmithing for Contrast (Minimum) on interactive elements
Resent-From: LVTF - low-vision-a11y <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Tuesday, 15 November 2016 at 04:37

Jim, Alastair, David, Jonathan Avila, et al

I agree!  I've just published (in the wiki) the David/Alastair version with some additional Goodwitch and Avila modifications.

Jonathan, I"m not clear on the intent of the 3 seconds for allowing temporary poor contrast.  Were you thinking 3 seconds "on load of a page"? Or were you thinking of 3 seconds "on scrolling".  I'm just now sure how the 3 seconds will work...I'm learning towards leaving out the temporary exception.

G

glenda sims    |   team a11y lead   |    deque.com<http://deque.com>    |    512.963.3773<tel:512.963.3773>

web for everyone. web on everything. -  w3 goals

On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu<mailto:jimallan@tsbvi.edu>> wrote:
Glenda,
I like the new wording with one exception. It is more concise and structured.
The exception is the phrase "A mechanism is available". Borders and focus is something the Author/Developer can fix. Until the browsers step up and fix the default presentation of the form borders, I think authors must fix the borders they can. To me "a mechanism is available" says the devs can say border contrast is a user problem and they can fix them with user style sheets or some other mechanism.
wording more in line with WCAG 1.4.3 would be better for me

Visual presentation of the following have a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1 against the immediate surrounding background :

  *   important (non-text) information in an interactive image;
  *   input elements or the border(s) of input elements;
  *   focus and select indicators;
except for the following which have a contrast ratio of at least 3:1.

     *   disabled interactive elements;
     *   thicker lines: where the minimum width of the line is at least 3px;
     *   focus Indicators for an interactive logo image;


On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com<mailto:glenda.sims@deque.com>> wrote:
Oh wonderful LVTF,

David MacDonald and Alastair Campbell have closely reviewed the proposed WCAG SC for Interactive Element Contrast (Minimum) at https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Contrast_(Minimum)

And I think they have made a fabulous suggestion for rewording, that makes it easier to read (and understand) this proposed SC, while simulatenously maintaing all the of the meaning and intent.

The current (long winded) wording is:

1.    The visual presentation of important (non-text) information in an interactive image has a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1 against the immediate surrounding background.
2.    The visual presentation of a disabled interactive element has a contrast ratio of at least 3:1 against the immediate surrounding background.
3.    The visual presentation of input elements or the border(s) of input elements has a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1 against the immediate surrounding background, except for the following:
•   Medium Width Border for Input Elements: A medium width border (or wider) for input elements has a contrast ratio of at least 3:1 against the immediate surrounding background;
4.    The visual presentation of focus indicators and selected indicators has a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1 against the immediate surrounding background, except for the following:
•   Medium Focus Indicator: Medium focus indicator has a contrast ratio of at least 3:1 against the immediate surrounding background;
•   Medium Selected Indicator: Medium selected indicator has a contrast ratio of at least 3:1 against the immediate surrounding background;.
•   Focus Indicator for an interactive logo image: Focus indicator for an interactive logo image has a contrast ratio of at least 3:1 against the immediate surrounding background.
The rewording proposed by David MacDonald & Alastair Campbell is:

A mechanism is available to ensure the visual presentation of the following have a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1 against the immediate surrounding background :

  *   important (non-text) information in an interactive image;
  *   input elements or the border(s) of input elements;
  *   focus and select indicators;
except for the following which have a contrast ratio of at least 3:1.

     *   disabled interactive elements;
     *   thicker lines: where the minimum width of the line is at least 3px;
     *   focus Indicators for an interactive logo image;
I'm in 100% favor of changing the wording to what David/Alastair have proposed.  But before I do that, I wanted to give y'all a chance to give me feedback.  If you are in favor of this change, can you respond with +1?  If you are opposed...can you respond with a -1 and help us understand what you think would be better?

Thanks much,
G

P.S.  I'll hold off on making this change on the wiki until Monday Nov 14th at noon central time.


--
Jim Allan, Accessibility Coordinator
Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired
1100 W. 45th St., Austin, Texas 78756
voice 512.206.9315<tel:512.206.9315>    fax: 512.206.9264<tel:512.206.9264>  http://www.tsbvi.edu/

"We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." McLuhan, 1964