The 'merging' (in my mind 'combining' or just 'use') of all relevant SC to
specific components/content-types/elements is always how I have applied
WCAG 2. I have been very surprised that others *don't* do it that way....
Katie Haritos-Shea
703-371-5545
On Feb 24, 2016 7:15 AM, "John Foliot" <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:
> Jonathan Avila wrote:
> >
> > > Why do you consider it a loophole? Is it not understood that for focus
> > > indicators need to satisfy colour contrast/luminosity ratios?
> >
> > We seem to all agree they should but this does not seem to be directly
> covered
> > by the success criteria.
>
> +1
> While we, as "experts" understand this, it is not specifically called out
> as
> part of the requirement(s) - thus the gap (I consider it more of a gap than
> a "loophole") is something that should be addressed going forward, either
> via work from one of the TFs currently working (Low Vision perhaps?)
>
>
> > I believe a similar missing need exists When selection and focus are
> indicated by
> > the difference in luminosity of background and not by shape. Consider
> a
> > selected page tab that was medium gray and the others a light gray. The
> > selected state is indicated by color difference and it's not clear if SC
> 1.4.1 would
> > apply. Even if it did apply and some other marking was added there is no
> > requirement that the marking have sufficient contrast.
>
> Hear, hear.... with the caveat that color alone is not the only means of
> providing that kind of visual feedback, so it is actually a "merging" (as
> it
> were) of both 1.4.1 AND the variant of 1.4.3 under discussion here
>
>
> > Future updates or extensions need to clearly address luminosity for
> visual
> > indication of keyboard focus and address color differences used for
> selection.
>
> +1
>
> JF
>
>