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

it really doesn’t matter how many SC it fails for the same person does it?  

We tried to not cover the same issue three ways.   So a failure of any one for a person- is a failure to be accessible.   Something that fails three for a person is not more inaccessible than one to a person.  Kind of like a person having by a chain.   If one link fails or three — they still fall. 

No?


gregg

> On Feb 24, 2016, at 12:01 PM, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote:
> 
> Ø  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).
> 
> 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] 
> 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:
> Ø  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....
> 
> 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
>