W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2017

Re: CFC - Graphics Contrast

From: James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 08:31:48 -0800
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <eafe93b5-58f3-fbb3-cb8b-b47d7770b34c@oracle.com>
No it would not. 1.4.1 does not mention the word state and include a 
definition which includes hover. Hover does not fit into the things 
which fail 1.4.1

Take for example the page 

There are contents, intro, Previous and Next buttons at the top of the 
page. The only difference when they are hovered is the background color.

The background color is #dde and the hover background color is #aae

The ratio between these is 1.6:1

I would not fail this page and I object to any SC which would fail this. 
My current reading of this new SC along with the definition of state 
proposed would and hence I object.

On 11/16/2017 7:54 AM, Repsher, Stephen J wrote:
> 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

Regards, James

<http://www.oracle.com> James Nurthen | Principal Engineer, Accessibility
Phone: +1 650 506 6781 <tel:+1%20650%20506%206781> | Mobile: +1 415 987 
1918 <tel:+1%20415%20987%201918> | Video: james.nurthen@oracle.com 
Oracle Corporate Architecture
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
<http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to developing 
practices and products that help protect the environment
Received on Thursday, 16 November 2017 16:31:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:18 UTC