Re: [w3c/wcag] Technique G183 not applicable to touch/inputs that lack hover/focus (#201)

The note on F73, if I remember correctly, was added at the same time as
G183, basically as the result of a consensus decision to allow contrast to
act as non-color way to distinguish links (G183). So yes the F73 note and
G183 are part of the same decision.

I was not part of the formulation of the G183 or F73 note, but I doubt SC
1.4.1 could have passed consensus without this "clarification" or
"exception" (depending on which side of the argument someone is on about
whether "lightness" is a color).

If I remember correctly, there was a well made argument, that lightness, at
least in some color models, is not a "color", and this provided a rational
to allow that which some stakeholders felt was a critical point, without
which they may not have consented to 1.4.1. It was a way out of a sticky
impass.

You gave dozens of helpful comments on the public working draft version of
WCAG, Patrick,  http://tinyurl.com/jb3tp5n and all this was there for your
reading.

Consensus is a fragile thing, and I think it is the key to why WCAG has
been so well accepted.

In the 8 years since it's been out, we've never had, to my knowledge, a
complaint about link color from an end user.

The issue about keeping blocks of text free of visual artifacts
(underlines, arrows, link icons, etc.) is a very hot topic on the current
web and removing G183, F73 might shake up some important stakeholders who
rely on this to satisfy their usability people who say text is harder to
read with artifacts.

I'd suggest we punt this to the low vision task force to consider for 2.1,
unless we want to make a bold consensus decision to break a lot of sites
that use rely on these techniques.

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com
> wrote:

> I am not 100% sure that this is broken. It may be related to some of the
> contrast algorithms or research done at Trace and elsewhere.
>
>
>
> Don’t throw out the bathwater yet, let’s get some more feedback on where
> this came from……….:-)
>
>
>
> ​​​​​
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ** katie **
>
>
>
> *Katie Haritos-Shea*
> *Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)*
>
>
>
> *Cell: 703-371-5545 <703-371-5545> **|* *ryladog@gmail.com*
> <ryladog@gmail.com> *|* *Oakton, VA **|* *LinkedIn Profile*
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> *|* *Office: 703-371-5545
> <703-371-5545> **|* *@ryladog* <https://twitter.com/Ryladog>
>
>
>
> *From:* Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:notifications@github.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, July 11, 2016 8:07 PM
> *To:* w3c/wcag <wcag@noreply.github.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [w3c/wcag] Technique G183 not applicable to touch/inputs
> that lack hover/focus (#201)
>
>
>
> What I love about WCAG is that once you peel away one aspect that seems
> broken, you find 5 more bits that it's built on that also seem broken...
>
> So F73 makes a distinction between hue and lightness. Leaving aside the
> fact that I would guess most people don't indeed make that distinction (and
> I'd guess that if you showed people two swatches, one fire engine red and
> one bright pink, they wouldn't say "it's the same color"), I wonder: what
> about saturation (if we use the classic HSL model)? This distinction seems
> already quite flawed (and it's enshrined in a non-normative note to a
> non-normative technique). Also, you can achieve a different color contrast
> by changing hue and saturation, not just lightness, so regular color
> contrast calculations wouldn't be enough to determine the 3:1 ratio...you'd
> have to also ensure that the hue (and saturation?) are the same, otherwise
> you're using a different color (in the restrictive "hue" sense).
>
> Long story short: agree that F73's note 1 also needs to be chopped.
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/201#issuecomment-231901891>, or mute
> the thread
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AFfqyuc2UbRFjGb73LNAwxmEDhvjiynYks5qUtqkgaJpZM4JJQGy>
> .
>