- From: James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2016 12:02:14 -0800
- To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
- Message-ID: <56CE0C46.3000902@oracle.com>
I read Katie's "absolutely" as answering the question in Jon's mail, to mean that it failed 2.4.7 if it failed 2.1.1. I do not agree with this statement. Regards, James On 2/24/2016 11:55 AM, John Foliot wrote: > > ??? > > James, I think I heard you echo back exactly what I think I heard Jon > and Katie in agreement on: > > IF SC2.1.1 = FAIL > > THEN SC 2.4.7 = Not Applicable > > (is everybody nodding yes in agreement? Or is the divergence that if > 2.1.1= FAIL, then 2.4.7 also = FAIL?) > > JF > > *From:*James Nurthen [mailto:james.nurthen@oracle.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 24, 2016 12:58 PM > *To:* 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) > > I guess that is where interpretation is different. > > 2.4.7 explicitly states "for any keyboard operable control". If it > fails 2.1.1 it is not keyboard operable and 2.4.7 does not apply. > > Regards, > James > > > On 2/24/2016 10:50 AM, Katie Haritos-Shea wrote: > > For me, absolutely, if you are going to the nth degree. > > Katie Haritos-Shea > 703-371-5545 > > On Feb 24, 2016 10:01 AM, "Jonathan Avila" > <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com <mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>> > wrote: > > ØWe must be talking about different things. What I am saying, > for example; a non-text interactive control must meet multiple > SC, not one, not just 4.1.2 or 1.1.1 or 2.4.7 - but all of > them (and quite a few more). > > Ah, yes, now I understand what you are saying. > > Generally agree! Next question might be if something is not > keyboard accessible for not being focusable (SC 2.1.1) then > does it also fail SC 2.4.7 (Focus Visible)? If I fail > something on 2.1.1 for not being focusable I would not > generally fail it on 2.4.7. > > Jonathan > > *From:*Katie Haritos-Shea [mailto:ryladog@gmail.com > <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>] > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 24, 2016 12:50 PM > *To:* Jonathan Avila > *Cc:* John Foliot; WCAG > *Subject:* RE: Re[2]: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a > decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread) > > Jon, > > We must be talking about different things. What I am saying, > for example; a non-text interactive control must meet multiple > SC, not one, not just 4.1.2 or 1.1.1 or 2.4.7 - but all of > them (and quite a few more). > > And failure to meet any of those would be individual failures. > How one reports those failures can be accomplished in any > number of ways. But how we explain the failures informs both > developers, QA and others. > > Katie Haritos-Shea > 703-371-5545 <tel:703-371-5545> > > On Feb 24, 2016 8:06 AM, "Jonathan Avila" > <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com > <mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>> wrote: > > ØThe '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.... > > I would certainly flag these as “issues” and indicate that > they need to be fixed – but strictly speaking there would be a > “advisory” caveat per the same way the understanding document > lists these as advisory. It is our recommendation that they > be addressed but when it comes to technical conformance they > may not pose a failure. They likely pose a risk to > organizations and that alone is sufficient to make sure they > are addressed. > > Jonathan > > *From:*Katie Haritos-Shea [mailto:ryladog@gmail.com > <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com>] > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 24, 2016 10:56 AM > *To:* John Foliot > *Cc:* David MacDonald; Léonie Watson; Sailesh Panchang; Andrew > Kirkpatrick; GLWAI Guidelines WG org; Gregg Vanderheiden RTF; > Jason J White; Paul J. Adam; Jim Allan; josh@interaccess.ie > <mailto:josh@interaccess.ie>; Jonathan Avila > *Subject:* RE: Re[2]: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a > decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread) > > 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 <tel:703-371-5545> > > On Feb 24, 2016 7:15 AM, "John Foliot" <john.foliot@deque.com > <mailto: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 > > -- > Regards, James > > Oracle <http://www.oracle.com> > James Nurthen | Principal Engineer, Accessibility > Phone: +1 650 506 6781 <tel:+1%20650%20506%206781> | Mobile: +1 415 > 987 1918 <tel:+1%20415%20987%201918> | Video: james.nurthen@oracle.com > <mailto:james.nurthen@oracle.com> > OracleCorporate Architecture > 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood Cty, CA 94065 > Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment>Oracle is committed to > developing practices and products that help protect the environment > -- Regards, James Oracle <http://www.oracle.com> James Nurthen | Principal Engineer, Accessibility Phone: +1 650 506 6781 <tel:+1%20650%20506%206781> | Mobile: +1 415 987 1918 <tel:+1%20415%20987%201918> | Video: james.nurthen@oracle.com <sip:james.nurthen@oracle.com> Oracle Corporate Architecture 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood Cty, CA 94065 Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment
Received on Wednesday, 24 February 2016 20:02:49 UTC