RE: Should we drop the color bullet for now?

Hmmm, then how do we make the markup mandatory in WCAG 2.1?  I'd love to just outlaw off-screen text altogether as an LV-unfriendly practice.  I use a screen reader to navigate, but I have enough vision to follow my custom focus highlighter around, and it does crazy things depending on how an author puts content off screen.  Yes, the practice is ubiquitous and widely taught as good accessibility, but ARIA should be trying to eliminate it.



Steve





-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Avila [mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 1:05 PM
To: public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Should we drop the color bullet for now?



> , if I made inactive tabs black on white and the active one white on

> black with proper markup,



Using markup to indicate semantics isn't required for WCAG 2 -- SC 1.3.1 and 4.1.2 can be met by using off-screen CSS text to indicate which tab is selected.  That means a user who might want to use high contrast mode would also need to try and figure out what CSS selector the page author used to create off-screen CSS text and display it.  If semantic markup was indeed required it would be easier to write a user style sheet that could overcomes these -- but it's not mandated and often isn't used.



Often I see developers turn off CSS outline and use a change in background color to indicate the focused state.  If you turn colors off you lose this information.  You could then turn outline back on in a user style sheet.  Really we are asking users with low vision to do a lot to create a readable experience -- more than we ask other users to do.  This is complicated by the fact that user stylesheet support is going away in many browsers and extension based styles are not at the user level.  So I hesitate to just say users can customize their stylesheet and it will solve the issue.



Jonathan



Jonathan Avila

Chief Accessibility Officer

SSB BART Group

jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>

703.637.8957 (Office)

Visit us online: Website | Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn | Blog Download our CSUN Presentations Here!



The information contained in this transmission may be attorney privileged and/or confidential information intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.





-----Original Message-----

From: Repsher, Stephen J [mailto:stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com]

Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 12:54 PM

To: Laura Carlson; Wayne Dick

Cc: Jonathan Avila; public-low-vision-a11y-tf

Subject: RE: Should we drop the color bullet for now?



Wayne et al,

I would be the last person to disagree that photophobia, glare sensitivity, and color contrast in general are not fundamental user needs that need better addressing in WCAG 2.1 and beyond.  I am a card-carrying member of that population.  However, I think part of the resistance to this SC comes from possibly not meeting the requirement to state the condition required of the content rather than the user's method to achieve it.  So, if we can drop it down one level to cover fixing what actually breaks when color is adapted, we'd be better off.  Your list of 4 things that can go wrong is a good one in my opinion, and it seems that transparency in graphics might be the only thing it is reasonable to ask the author to fix when it comes to color that isn't already covered in another SC.



Jon et al,

You bring up a good point about ambiguity in 1.4.1, so I'd be interested in knowing how this is actually handled in audits.  In the examples you gave of a tab or focused element, is the argument that 1.4.1 does not apply, or is the other means that they are marked up correctly?  In a hypothetical author's defense, if I made inactive tabs black on white and the active one white on black with proper markup, there would be no failure to meet any user's needs even though color is the only distinguishing factor.  To Laura's point though, this goes back to the user stylesheet being smart enough to have a selector cueing off of role="tab", for example, which would be a failure of 1.3.1/1.4.2 if absent.



Steve



-----Original Message-----

From: Laura Carlson [mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com]

Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 11:38 AM

To: Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com<mailto:wayneedick@gmail.com>>

Cc: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>>; public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>>

Subject: Re: Should we drop the color bullet for now?



Thank you, Wayne!



On 4/26/17, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com<mailto:wayneedick@gmail.com>> wrote:

> Hi All,

> We can drop it now for more research, but not permanently.

>

> It is not necessary to drop color, and it will help with  photophobia.

> The extent of photophobia was underestimated in 2.0. The Texas School

> for the Blind Table on Specific Eye Conditions shows otherwise.

> Photophobia accompanies blind spots. That means the need is solid.

>

> It is practical for enabling a choice of any distinguishable color pattern.

>

> Definition: A color pattern is distinguishable whenever a fully

> sighted user can distinguish text from background. (This is known, it

> depends on contrast. The research needed is to compute the formulae in

> papers to the W3C numbers.)

>

> Once we do this we can construct a formula for acceptable foreground /

> background color pairs (f, b) in rgb.

>

> Then testing works as follows:

>

> Pick a color pattern (f, b) that does not occur on your page.

> Test it.

> Does anything change using Alastair's script?

> Do controls or essential images disappear?

> Is the print readable.

> Now, Alastair doesn't include this step but I have found it useful.

> Reverse f and b. That is test with the foreground/ background pair (b, f).

> Look for the same stuff.

>

> More techniques will emerge as we test.

>

> Wayne

>

>

> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 6:25 AM, Jonathan Avila

> <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com<mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>>

> wrote:

>

>> > 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<mailto: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<mailto:stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>>

>> > Cc: public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>>;

>> > Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com<mailto: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

>>

>>

>





--

Laura L. Carlson