RE: CFC - Graphics Contrast

Hover on contrast of text is already covered under SC 1.4.3 per this group.  A user with magnification may be using a pointing device and needs to be able to see the content under the pointing device in sufficient contrast.

The minimum contrast success criterion (1.4.3) applies to text in the page, including placeholder text and text that is shown when a pointer is hovering over an object or when an object has keyboard focus. If any of these are used in a page, the text needs to provide sufficient contrast. (


Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
Level Access, inc. (formerly SSB BART Group, inc.)<>
703.637.8957 (Office)
Visit us online: Website<> | Twitter<> | Facebook<> | LinkedIn<> | Blog<>
Looking to boost your accessibility knowledge? Check out our free webinars!<>

The information contained in this transmission may be attorney privileged and/or confidential information intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

From: James Nurthen []
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: CFC - Graphics Contrast

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.


From: Alastair Campbell []
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 3:03 AM
To: James Nurthen <><>
Cc: WCAG <><>
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?


Regards, James

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:<>
Oracle Corporate Architecture
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment

Received on Thursday, 16 November 2017 17:01:09 UTC