W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2016

Re: Transient states

From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 20:39:33 -0500
Message-ID: <BLU437-SMTP41AEFFB14C07F85F1500E6FEB30@phx.gbl>
To: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
CC: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I totally agree... I was surprised to see our response... if I had been on
the call I would have said that I on't see any exception for hover states
in the WCAG contrast rules.

On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
wrote:

> Alastair, thank you for bringing this up.
>
>
>
> While I can certainly understand the active state not being covered as it
> occurs between when the user performs the action and when the action occurs
> – focus states occur when the user tabs to an element and thus this is
> likely to be an issue for users who rely on the keyboard.  Since we are
> talking about the contrast of text here – and the text is not inactive – I
> don’t understand how SC 1.4.3 and 1.4.6 do not apply.
>
>
>
> The focus and hover state do not appear to fall under the Incidental
> clause: Text or images of text that are part of an inactive user interface
> component, that are pure decoration, that are not visible to anyone, or
> that are part of a picture that contains significant other visual content,
> have no contrast requirement.
>
>
>
> Unless someone can point me to an documented normative exception for this
> I’ll be opening an new issue at minimum for the focus state.
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From:* Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 08, 2016 9:05 AM
> *To:* GLWAI Guidelines WG org
> *Subject:* Transient states
>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> There was an item last week on defining ‘transient states’ with regards to
> this:
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/157
>
>
>
> The whole point may be moot now as Makoto Ueki pointed out that the group
> responded on this here:
>
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2014Feb/0039.html
>
>
>
>
> So historically focus/hover/activate states are *not *covered by colour
> contrast in SC 1.4.3. That surprised a few people.
>
>
>
> In case this gets re-visited I tried to find a way of differentiating
> transient states (such as hover) from *really* transient states (such as
> active).
>
>
>
> In W3C terms these are generally referenced as 'Dynamic pseudo-classes’
> and within those, 'user action pseudo-classes', but they are not defined by
> their timing element, and there is no differentiation from the CSS/HTML
> spec (that I can find). Both CSS and WCAG should apply across platforms, so
> definitions are difficult.
>
>
>
> The closest thing is 'formal activation state’ in the WhatWG doc here:
>
>
> https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/scripting.html#in-a-formal-activation-state
>
> "An element is said to be in a *formal activation state* between the time
> the user begins to indicate an intent to trigger the element's activation
> behaviour"
>
>
>
> So there is a potential avenue, but as I noted above, the point may be
> moot if none of them are covered.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2016 01:40:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:33:17 UTC