RE: CFC - Graphics Contrast

Adding to what Alastair is saying, I’m confused by the objection because, as you pointed out, using color alone to differentiate between hover and non-hover would be a violation of 1.4.1.  Only when the 2 states are adjacent and touching would this SC come into play, but the 3:1 ratio requirement is the same.

Steve

From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:03 AM
To: James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: RE: CFC - Graphics Contrast

> Requiring hover to have sufficient contrast ratio to non-hover states has no accessibility requirements behind it as far as I know and would unnecessarily limit color choices in an already limited palette.

Hi James,

I don’t think that was discussed directly, but in order for that to be an issue the controls in different states would have to be adjacent, i.e. touching. Even without a mention of states, I think that would be an issue in current WCAG conformance.

There was some discussion about whether ‘existing’ was a state, and people thought that wasn’t clear so ‘boundaries’ was added:
“Visual information used to indicate states and boundaries of active user interface components”

(Still with the intent that if it isn’t there, you don’t have to add something.)

Does that help?

-Alastair