- From: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:57:51 -0500
- To: Gregg Vanderheiden RTF <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
- Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAKdCpxwtXutMvpWCuEA8L9F6B6kZP6kBq6qgPYO4e0kNJFkYBw@mail.gmail.com>
(My apologies to Makoto for mis-spelling his name, it should read: Makoto Ueki. Sorry friend) JF On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:54 PM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote: > Hi Gregg, > > I think, as I review the WCAG Success Criteria, that one of the key issues > is that the Recommendation does not speak specifically to this issue - that > in fact there is a vacuum here that needs filling. > > Success Criteria 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) states*:* The visual > presentation of text <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#textdef> and images > of text <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#images-of-textdef> has a contrast > ratio <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#contrast-ratiodef> of at least 4.5:1, > except for the following: (Level AA) > > - > > Large Text: Large-scale <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#larger-scaledef> text > and images of large-scale text have a contrast ratio of at least 3:1; > - > > Incidental: Text or images of text that are part of an inactive user > interface component > <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#user-interface-componentdef>, that are pure > decoration <https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#puredecdef>, that are not > visible to anyone, or that are part of a picture that contains significant > other visual content, have no contrast requirement. > - > > Logotypes: Text that is part of a logo or brand name has no minimum > contrast requirement. > > > Absent here is the notion of "state" - the SC neither explicitly includes > or precludes the idea that "text", and the color of the text, can change > dependant on state (visited, unvisited, active, onHover/onMouseover, etc.). > Whether this was by conscious design, or an error of omission I do not > know, but a strict reading of the SC clearly does not explicitly address > that concern. > > > I will note that on the call, Makoto Ukei brought forward earlier > "guidance" > <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2014Feb/0039.html> > regarding this gap based upon a Last Call comment, and he noted that > previously the WG did suggest otherwise (" > The opinion of the working group is that the color-contrast ratio of the > link text when focused or hovered does not need to meet 1.4.3/1.4.6. The > goal of the color contrast success criteria is to ensure that content can > be read by users, so as long as the links are sufficient contrast when not > focused/hovered then they will meet 1.4.3/1.4.6. > ") > > HOWEVER I also note that this opinion was never incorporated into the > Normative Requirements (and that finding the opinion/decision would likely > be onerous to those not familiar with the ins-and-outs of W3C archiving :) > ) Further, there is no mention of this opinion/decision in the > Understanding documentation for either SC1.4.3 nor SC1.4.6 > > I agree that sites that may have operated under the earlier opinion would > be impacted here from an 'intent' perspective, but as the Success Criteria > does not speak directly to the question of state, it remains, effectively, > an unresolved question. > > I would suggest that the best way forward would be to ensure that the > decision (as well as the prior decision) be captured in the Understanding > documentation, with a note that content created prior to the opinion not be > held accountable to the opinion in terms of success or failure - yes, that > feels squishy, but I cannot think of another way out: officially the SC > says nothing. > > Thoughts? > > JF > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden RTF < > gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote: > >> Sorry >> >> I was thinking 12:45 was at night. >> >> My comment still stands. I don’t think it is within the purview of the >> WG to do this — to normatively re-interpret something to be covered that >> the WG at the time said was not. >> >> *gregg* >> >> On Apr 14, 2016, at 8:22 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> >> wrote: >> >> Gregg, >> The deadline is passed, not sure where you are seeing otherwise. >> >> We discussed this at length and did not feel that this interpretation to >> be out of line with what the WG believed at the time the SC were >> finalized. Can you clarify specifically how you feel that this is >> incorrect? >> >> Thanks, >> AWK >> >> Andrew Kirkpatrick >> Group Product Manager, Accessibility and Standards >> Adobe >> >> akirkpat@adobe.com >> http://twitter.com/awkawk >> >> From: CAE-Vanderhe <gregg@raisingthefloor.org> >> Date: Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 14:11 >> To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> >> Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> >> Subject: Re: CfC: Issue 157 >> >> Hi All, >> >> it is still before the deadline - but I see this item was called. >> >> >> >> l will post my concern anyway. >> >> >> I am sorry to have to say - but I disagree with this answer / response. >> >> It is my understanding — (and a general operating principle in standards) >> that the Working group cannot change the interpretation of a standard >> after the issuing of the standard. The understanding at the time the >> standard was passed, and the understanding released publicly and on which >> the public interpreted and commented on the standard, and the >> interpretation of the working group when it reached consensus on the >> provision must prevail. >> >> From the discussion - it appears that it is the understanding that the >> Working Group meant it to mean one thing — and the new Working Group is >> deciding to change the meaning. This would constitute a >> re-interpretation of the standard — in a normative way — after adoption. >> >> >> The interpretation of the standard at the time it was passed must stand >> as long as the provision stands. >> >> Changing the interpretation - when it was clearly stated - is equivalent >> to normatively changing the standard after the fact. >> >> >> The working group should always strive to interpret the standard * as >> they believe the working group understood the standard at the time >> consensus was reached by the working group.* >> >> This is independent of whether this is a good idea or not. >> >> ———————————————— >> >> Now separate from that - -one should keep in mind - that this >> interpretation also conflicts with the conformance criteria which allow >> things to take different forms and only need to meet the guidelines in one >> form. For example a page can have one viewing option that is does not >> meet the success criteria as long as there is another viewing option that >> does. >> >> >> Finally, due to the math - you cannot have two colors that both meet the >> SC at 7 and are still appreciably different from each other in contrast >> with the page. >> >> >> >> I think that for future work (revisions) both of these issues should be >> taken into account before deciding. They were among the reasons the >> Working Group decided as it did last time. >> >> However, with respect to WCAG 2., both of these latter are irrelevant if >> the group really believes that the WG meant it one way — and they are >> deciding to differ and are redefining the normative term (or its >> interpretation) after the fact. That is not really really appropriate to >> do without issuing a new standard because it is in effect making a >> normative change to a standing standard. >> >> >> >> If I misunderstood something — let me know. (or if you disagree - I am >> happy to discuss whether I am right.) but I THINK that this is outside of >> the WG purview for the reasons above. >> >> respectfully >> >> *gregg* >> >> On Apr 12, 2016, at 6:43 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> >> wrote: >> >> CALL FOR CONSENSUS – ends Thursday April 14 at 12:45pm Boston time. >> >> GitHub issue 157 related to the need for the focus and hover states to >> meet WCAG contrast requirements was discussed on the April 12 WCAG >> teleconference and surveyed to the group ( >> https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/5April2016_misc/results#xi157). >> >> Proposed response: >> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/157#issuecomment-208996348 >> >> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not >> been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not >> being able to live with” this position, please let the group know before >> the CfC deadline. >> >> Thanks, >> AWK >> >> Andrew Kirkpatrick >> Group Product Manager, Accessibility and Standards >> Adobe >> >> akirkpat@adobe.com >> http://twitter.com/awkawk >> >> >> >> > > > -- > John Foliot > Principal Accessibility Consultant > Deque Systems Inc. > john.foliot@deque.com > > Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion > -- John Foliot Principal Accessibility Consultant Deque Systems Inc. john.foliot@deque.com Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
Received on Thursday, 14 April 2016 18:58:22 UTC