W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org > April 2017

Re: Where should we handle Table Borders and Details/Summary "triangle"

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 08:13:04 +0000
To: Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <HE1PR0901MB1468D274D1F9B252CD51C319B91A0@HE1PR0901MB1468.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Hi Glenda,

My initial reaction is that it doesn't fit in either, but taking a little step back, what's the issue we are trying to solve?

Presumably it is tables which have very low-contrast borders/backgrounds? 

A (valid) table has semantics, so the borders are under the user's control, to the same extent that text-adaptation is under user-control.

Rather than hack apart either of the current SCs, I would rather spend time bolstering the recommendations on the contrast ratio for both the current SCs.

I was reviewing the comments on graphics contrast, and there were two notable ones on the ratios:

Trace: "The other contrast levels were chosen to apply to text you are trying to read running text. ... For graphic objects do not have the same constraint and lower contrast could be used. However we could find no research that would backup what contrast should be." [1]

Webaim: "We believe additional clarification and research is needed regarding the relevance of the current WCAG-defined contrast requirements to modern displays and users. These WCAG formulas and thresholds for contrast are primarily based on research conducted in 2001 on an Amiga 1000 display. Display technology and user adeptness has certainly changed significantly since then, yet few people question the applicability of this research to the modern web."

So I think we need to:

1. Establish if we have any research on non-text contrast for people with low vision. 

2. Setup some test cases in a survey format (not W3C survey, a nice version) where we can get people to say what they can see well enough.

Does anyone object to that focus?

Kind regards,

-Alastair

________________________________________
From: Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com>
Sent: 20 April 2017 19:45
To: public-low-vision-a11y-tf
Subject: Where should we handle Table Borders and Details/Summary "triangle"

Ooooo Alastair,


  1.  Where should we handle the visual affordances of native html table borders?  Your SC or mine?
     *   We could try and stuff it in mine...but then I would have to rename my SC...because currently I just focus on active/interactive UI elements.  Can we include it (in understanding and maybe a sufficient technique) for Graphics Contrast?
  2.  Where should we handle the visual affordances of the upcoming "triangle" affordance for the native <details> and <summary> feature as seen here (currently only supported by chrome) http://html5doctor.com/the-details-and-summary-elements/
     *   I believe it should be in mine...because it is an active/interactive UI element that will be rendered by the browser (it is not an image).

Currently, the proposed "User Interface Component Contrast (Minimum)" has only been handling things that are interactive and rendered/drawn by the browser.

And your proposed "Graphics Contrast" has been focused on anything that is an image provided by the author (active or static/informative).

But now we need to agree how we are going to handle table borders.

So...what do you think? Which SC do you think it fits best with?
G

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

web for everyone. web on everything. -  w3 goals
Received on Friday, 21 April 2017 08:13:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 27 April 2017 14:44:35 UTC