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

Re: Re[2]: Colour Luminosity/Contrast for form inputs/controls/components

From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 12:34:09 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAdDpDbfUJDgSgsCEGvZ=p7DOAgi5wAiFVoU-a6eaAuPY+qprw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com>
Cc: "josh@interaccess.ie" <josh@interaccess.ie>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
One thing bear in mind when considering sufficient contrast on focus
indicators. It is likely that there're will be buttons of different colors
and interactive elements of different colors. To maintain sufficient
contrast with each tab press, the focus indicator would have to change
colors depending on the color of the button for direct development that's
landing on. That's a bit of a programming nightmare.

I don't know a way around that right now. Perhaps we could say something
like sufficient contrast with the default Interactive element color.
However on most sites that color is decided in the CSS.

I think visible folks indicators important place to put some attention in
the 2.1 ... And I'm interested n some creative solutions hurdles I'm
talking about here...

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 Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com> wrote:

> Great questions!  Laura Carlson, Jim Allan and I have been looking at
> proposed wording for a new success criterion called "Interactive Element
> Contrast (Minimum)".
>
> So far the draft covers color contrast for:
>
>    - important (non-text) information in an image
>    - disabled interactive elements
>    - borders of input elements
>    - focus indicators
>    - select indicators
>
> Sounds like we need to add visual presentation of the interactive element
> itself.
>
> I'll put some thought into this and draft some proposed language.
>
> Please note, we are in early draft stage.  The LVTF has not discussed this
> proposal in detail yet.  I have suggested it as an item for the agenda.
> Hopefully we will be able to dive into this discussion this week on our
> LVTF call.
>
> And...as Alastair said, the draft we've crafted is here:
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Contrast_(Minimum)
>
> To A11Y & Beyond!
> Glenda
>
>
> glenda sims    |   team a11y lead   |    deque.com    |    512.963.3773
>
>
> *web for everyone. web on everything.* -  w3 goals
>
> On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 7:10 AM, josh@interaccess.ie <josh@interaccess.ie>
> wrote:
>
>> 1.4.3 is only for text currently,
>> LVTF wants to expand to all info including ui and graphs etc...
>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 5:37 AM, josh@interaccess.ie <josh@interaccess.ie>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm looking at contrast requirements for a client regarding form
>>> controls, radio buttons etc for a client, and WCAG does not seem to specify
>>> them. It seems 'implied' that 1.4.3 is relevant and there are
>>> techniques that touch on the subject (G183, G182, G111) but nothing
>>> definitive like.
>>>
>>> "If you have an UI component/input control, or radio button that a VIP
>>> user needs to see to select/interact with the luminosity requirements are
>>> x."
>>>
>>> Am I missing something? Or is this something we need to address?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> Josh
>>>
>>
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 2 November 2016 16:34:44 UTC

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