Re: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)

+1 to icons and focus indicators

Katie Haritos-Shea
703-371-5545
On Feb 23, 2016 10:43 AM, "Paul J. Adam" <paul.adam@deque.com> wrote:

> I’d also like to see contrast requirements for focus outlines, another
> current WCAG loophole.
>
> Paul J. Adam
> Accessibility Evangelist
> www.deque.com
>
> On Feb 23, 2016, at 12:09 PM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:
>
> Gregg wrote:
> >
> > can’t extend this to ICONS unless you very carefully define icon icon
> art
> > and figure out how to handle the fact that you can only have one color
> > other than black and white and still have everything contrast with
> everything
> > else.  Mathematically impossible.   You can try it.
> >
> >
> > But I go back to the comment above.   What is it we are trying to
> solve.  Text
> > on pages that can be displayed in any desired contrast?    This is
> already in
> > WCAG.
>
> Hi Gregg,
>
> The current gap in WCAG, as I (and others) see it is that color contrast
> requirements are today **only** associated to text, which leaves an
> important class of “on screen object” outside of the requirement –
> actionable graphics (icons or similar).
>
> Use-case:
> A web-page/web-app has a “print” icon located in the top right corner:
> clicking on that (through the magic of JavaScript) loads the same page into
> the same/or different window, but with the print style-sheet referenced,
> and also exposes the print functionality of the user’s system. (Putting
> aside whether or not they should be doing this; we see it in the wild all
> of the time).
>
> The problem statement however is that the small graphic of a printer [sic]
> is light gray on white, so that the actionable element (whether a font
> icon, or a .png, or…) is not ‘Perceivable’ to a low vision user.
>
> This call to action, whether it is text surrounded by the anchor tag, or a
> graphic similarly marked-up, is, by being an actionable item, critical to
> those LV users, but the wording of WCAG today excludes (omits?) that
> possibility, as it focuses *exclusively* on “text” or “Images of text”:
>
> 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum): The visual presentation of *text* and *images
> of text* has a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1, except for the
> following: (Level AA)
>
> Thus I’d like to see the inclusion of “actionable graphics” or similar
> wording as also requiring sufficient contrast and/or being modifiable (when
> possible?) moving forward. Happy to have that word-smithed as required, as
> long as we capture the key essence of the requirement.
>
> JF
>
>
> *From:* Gregg Vanderheiden RTF [mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org
> <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 22, 2016 8:07 PM
> *To:* John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
> *Cc:* tink@tink.uk; Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>; David
> MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>; Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org>;
> Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>; Andrew Kirkpatrick <
> akirkpat@adobe.com>; GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 -
> which has long since been lost in this thread)
>
>
>
> *gregg*
>
>
> On Feb 22, 2016, at 6:37 PM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:
>
> …and yet, as we’ve seen already on this thread, increasing contrast
> negatively affects other user-groups (COGA), which effectively leaves us
> with a real dilemma: how do we address the needs of both groups?
>
>
> Thanks John.   This is exactly the question.
>
> And the answer is — to prescribe any presentation or limit any
> presentation.   The WCAG is designed to allow users to customize their
> presentation.    For contrast - it sets a minimum — but it is quite low and
> far from the High or Low contrast —   at  4.5 to 1      (High contrast is
> 20:1  an   1:1 is of courses no contrast.
>
>
> Can it be done simultaneously?
>
>
> Not on the same screen at the same time — unless moderate contrast is good
> enough for both.       If one needs high and one needs low — then WCAG
> provides machine access to the content to allow it to be presented at any
> contrast and with any colors that a person finds best.
>
>
> Is color contrast issues an outlier here, or do we envision other emergent
> SC that may cause the same or similar discrepancies?
>
>
> Color contrast is a bit of a problem.    Unless you know the color vision
> - you do not know if a color contrast is of any use or just makes real
> contrast worse (one way or the other).  That is why WCAG is based on
> luminosity which is preserved approximately across color visions
> differences or even no color perception.
>
>
>
> Off the top of my head, I could perhaps envision a new Success Criteria
> that says something along the lines of “Page Content [sic] MUST allow the
> end user to adjust contrast between the ranges of ___ (whatever is a
> reasonable low-end for COGA needs) and ___ (whatever is a reasonable
> high-end for LV, etc.)”
>
>
> This capability is already provided in WCAG through AT.    If we are
> saying that every Website should build in all the AT needed by all types,
> degrees and combinations of disability directly — then I think we have gone
> too far — and in fact cannot do this technically.
>
>
> - in other words mandating customization-ability of the page/site in
> question. One possible Technique would be to offer the end user the ability
> to select a “skin” or color scheme upon first visit (with perhaps setting a
> cookie to remember the user’s choice?...  I don’t know, I’m thinking out
> loud here…)
>
>
> Good to do.  But
>
>
> What I would certainly bristle at however would be something along the
> lines of:
>
>
> SC 1.4.3 (and/or)
> SC 1.4.3.1LV (and/or)
> SC 1.4.3.2COGA  (and/or)
> SC 1.4.3.3MOBILE
>
> …that to me is a recipe for confusion and non-adoption.
>
>
> Agree
>
> Also seems to discriminate against all the other disabilities.
>
> And these are  OR  so I only have to do one  and forget the others?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> (Slightly off-tangent – for a thread already way off tangent – I **could**
> envision “extending” SC 1.4.3 to cover icons and other key actionable
> graphics on a page, which is currently not covered at all by WCAG 2.0: now *
> *THAT** I could see as a SC 1.4.3.1 sub-set/sub-section)
>
>
> can’t extend this to ICONS unless you very carefully define icon icon art
> and figure out how to handle the fact that you can only have one color
> other than black and white and still have everything contrast with
> everything else.  Mathematically impossible.   You can try it.
>
>
> But I go back to the comment above.   What is it we are trying to solve.
> Text on pages that can be displayed in any desired contrast?    This is
> already in WCAG.
>
> Pages that have built-in AT for each disability?     Don’t think this is
> possible or practical.
>
> But whatever - before we throw solutions at the wall - we should figure
> out what we are trying to do.    And if we already can do it or now.
>
> thx all
>
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
> JF
>
> *From:* Léonie Watson [mailto:tink@tink.uk <tink@tink.uk>]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 22, 2016 4:17 PM
> *To:* 'John Foliot' <john.foliot@deque.com>; 'Katie Haritos-Shea' <
> ryladog@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* 'David MacDonald' <david100@sympatico.ca>; 'CAE-Vanderhe' <
> gregg@raisingthefloor.org>; 'Jason J White' <jjwhite@ets.org>; 'Sailesh
> Panchang' <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>; 'Andrew Kirkpatrick' <
> akirkpat@adobe.com>; 'GLWAI Guidelines WG org' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2
>
> *From:* John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com <john.foliot@deque.com>]
>
> *Sent:* 22 February 2016 19:20
> "The fact that a TF that is looking specifically at issues related to Low
> Vision users (or Cognitive users, or Mobile users – which sort of is
> everybody) helps bring focus to those types of needs, and ensures that the
> next-gen WCAG addresses shortcomings that specifically affects that group,
> but I will suggest that increasing the contrast requirements [sic] will
> benefit not only LV users, but perhaps Mobile users and Seniors as well, so
> making it a “Low Vision” Success Criteria in name feels (to me) wrong."
>
> +1
>
> I think it will also cause confusion. The 2.0 SC is intended to provide
> sufficient contrast for people with low vision. If an extension SC provides
> a better recommendation, it will effectively render the original SC
> obsolete.
>
> Updating guidance is progress and is a good thing (in many respects it's
> already long overdue), but trying to have conflicting SC exist in the same
> time/space seems like we're asking for trouble.
>
> Léonie.
>
> --
> @LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem
>
>
>