RE: Should we drop the color bullet for now?

> So, should we drop the color bullet permanently?

In my opinion SC 1.4.1 Color focuses on specific colors to communicate a meaning.  More often we have situations where the difference in color is used to communicate information.  For example, a difference in color might indicate selected state of a tab or a link -- it's not the color itself -- it could be any color -- but the difference in color.  Other times the difference in color might be used to communicate the focus state.  If this is already covered by SC 1.4.1 then we are ok -- if it is not then we need to have it.

Jonathan



-----Original Message-----
From: Laura Carlson [mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 9:14 AM
To: Repsher, Stephen J
Cc: public-low-vision-a11y-tf
Subject: Re: Should we drop the color bullet for now?

Hi Stephen,

I think you are right for # 3 too.

So, should we drop the color bullet permanently?

Thoughts everyone?

Thank you.

Kindest Regards,
Laura

On 4/25/17, Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the comments, Laura.
>
> #1 would go back to techniques and failures then for Info & 
> Relationships and/or Name, Role, Value.
>
> I can make an attempt at language for #2 and document on the wiki if 
> others agree as well.
>
> For #3 I'm just having trouble understanding where, if color style is 
> used alone to hide content, that is not just a failure of Contrast 
> (Minimum) per WCAG 2.0.
>
> Thanks for helping my brain on #4 - I did not make the connection with 
> the CSS important keyword.  I completely agree with your assessment.
>
> Steve
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laura Carlson [mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2017 3:37 PM
> To: Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>
> Cc: public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>; 
> Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Should we drop the color bullet for now?
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Good analysis. Thank you! My comments are inline.
>
>> 1. The author uses sprite taken from the background image.
>> In my opinion, I think outlawing sprites would be met with harsh 
>> resistance.
>>  This is yet another loophole where the versatility of CSS is used to 
>> create content, graying the lines with style.  The other major one 
>> getting attention being icon fonts.  Again, this goes back to the 
>> markup using role="img" so that user styles have a discriminating 
>> selector.
>
> Agreed
>
>> 2. The author uses transparent images for controls that depend on the 
>> pages background color for visibility I agree this is a highly 
>> annoying one, and for other reasons than just user styles (e.g.
>> viewing a graphic on its own in order to zoom and remove 
>> distractions).  I wonder if this couldn't just be covered in a very 
>> simple SC of its own or be incorporated in Graphics Contrast?  A 
>> simple statement saying that essential graphical objects should not 
>> depend on colors outside the containing graphic for contrast should 
>> suffice.
>
> Graphics Contrast seems to be a good fit.
>
>> 3. Items that are hidden with color become visible My gut is telling 
>> me this would fail another SC, but maybe some examples would help.  I 
>> don't think I ran across this too often in my user style days.
>
> I think we need to do some testing with Alatair's bookmarket unless 
> someone has been collecting samples of these.
>
>> 4. Embedded color declarations that use important Wayne, I think this 
>> thought is missing a word or two and I don't have any educated 
>> guesses to complete it.  Could you fill us in?
>
> Users can override inline !important author CSS declarations. The 
> thing is they have to do it at the same or higher specificity level, 
> which necessitates users investigating an author's markup and 
> carefully crafting rules to override it. Like sprites, I suspect an 
> attempt to outlaw inline !important author CSS declarations would be met with harsh resistance.
>
> Kindest Regards,
> Laura
> --
> Laura L. Carlson
>
>


--
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2017 13:25:47 UTC