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

Re: Question F81 note at end of examples will lead to F2 failure

From: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2016 10:39:28 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJi9CqrrzNXT09ZnMYb6iG=60f=Mw6UxSNj0dQuv4BeMu0vbbA@mail.gmail.com>
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Jonathan,
If markup or text is included  to ensure that F2 does not occur in the
two examples under F81, do you not think F81 becomes a non issue?
Color then is just for visual reinforcement.
In fact for example 2, the label text is unchanged (i.e. same as
before submission), then failure to convey that there is an input
error in text is also a 3.3.1 failure.
Again color is a visual reinforcement and  F81 is a non issue.
Therefore making the note longer with the clarification you suggest
may not add practical value.
Thanks,
Sailesh


On 10/23/16, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote:
>> Agreed, the difference may  not be conveyed via color but it is suggesting
>> some semantics or info relationship that is not available via text or
>> programmatic determinable markup.
>
> Right, but this failure is only listed as a failure of SC 1.4.1.  So using
> bold or lightness is sufficient contrast is acceptable to pass SC 1.4.1.
> You are correct that it would still be a failure under SC 1.3.1 unless other
> methods were used.  I think we should keep the note but perhaps update it to
> be clear that it would pass the SC associated with the failure only and
> other SC must be evaluated on their own merits.
>
> Jon
>
> Jonathan Avila
> Chief Accessibility Officer
> SSB BART Group
> jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com
> 703.637.8957 (Office)
>
> Visit us online: Website | Twitter | Facebook | Linkedin | Blog
> Check out our Digital Accessibility Webinars!
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sailesh Panchang [mailto:spanchang02@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 9:26 AM
> To: WCAG
> Subject: Question F81 note at end of examples will lead to F2 failure
>
> The note reads:
> " Note: In both examples, the color could be used without failure if the
> text was sufficiently different in visual presentation (e.g. bold or in a
> different
> font) that it would be easily differentiated from the surrounding text if
> the color were removed. It would also not fail if the color chosen had
> sufficient luminosity difference (lightness) from the other text that it
> would be easily be seen as different if viewed in black and white. In these
> cases - the information would not be displayed in color (hue) alone but also
> in "presentation" or "lightness" respectively".
>
> Agreed, the difference may  not be conveyed via color but it is suggesting
> some semantics or info relationship that is not available via text or
> programmatic determinable markup.
> That note in the context of the preceding example will allow a developer to
> use other presentation effect in place of color. Indeed no user, PWD or not,
> can be 100% sure that the field is mandatory and that is what the color or
> presentation difference indicates because it is ambiguous to users in
> general if I may borrow the phrase from SC 2.4.4.
>
> That note  at the end of F81 examples will lead to
> F2: Failure of Success Criterion 1.3.1 due to using changes in text
> presentation to convey information without using the appropriate markup or
> text
>
> I suggest the placement of the note be reviewed  and perhaps be withdrawn to
> prevent content authors down  a pitfall.
>
> Thanks,
> Sailesh Panchang
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 27 October 2016 14:40:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:07 UTC