RE: Does 1.4.1 cover differences in state?

By “active” do you mean “not disabled” (as in aria-disabled=false)? If so, clarification would be helpful, as there doesn’t seem to be a generally accepted term for this concept.

From: Michael Gower [mailto:michael.gower@ca.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2017 10:29 AM
To: James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org; Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Subject: Re: Does 1.4.1 cover differences in state?

I'm trying to tackle these different scenarios in the Understanding text of Graphics Contrast, where pertinent. We may also need to add additional material to the Understanding doc for 1.4.1.
I will note that the combination of sufficient Graphics Contrast in combination with Use of Color makes for some complicated scenarios but SO FAR logically consistent guidance.

However, we may need to rejig the wording slightly for 1.4.11 to address some edge cases. It currently states:
User Interface Components
Visual information used to indicate states and boundaries of active user interface components, except where the appearance of the component is determined by the user agent and not modified by the author.

I think this should more properly read something like:
User Interface Component boundaries
Visual information used to indicate boundaries of active user interface components, except where the appearance of the component is determined by the user agent and not modified by the author.
User Interface Component states
Visual information used to indicate states of active user interface components, except where the enhancements determined by the user agent are not suppressed by the author.

Folks may want to review C15: Using CSS to change the presentation of a user interface component when it receives focus<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2016%2FNOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007%2FC15&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cbfe5d3196c8b4feab53f08d52dd038a4%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636465294680747380&sdata=%2FHTTmrHCwXmyKcmmI5HogEXSNm2e3dqXowhhapoJoAM%3D&reserved=0>

James has already pointed out the onhover effect for the four buttons that appear at the top of this (and every) WCAG page. This page also provides two examples which appear to be contraventions of Use of Color, until one realizes that the examples, as noted by Steve, are enhancing the visual appearance "when an interactive element has focus or when a user hovers over it using a pointing device "

So, for the rollover effect, the mouse cursor shape change indicates the interact item beneath. So while the author effect is only Use of Color, it is not the sole indicator. In the linked working example, for the input field, the flashing insertion point also indicates focus. For the radio buttons, the focus rectangle provides the redunancy beyond the yellow highlight enhancement. I will say that the examples they provide are to me questionable design decisions, but they are 'allowable' as long as the author has not suppressed the native browser effects.

I've broken out boundary from state effects for this precise reason. I believe the language's intent is consistent with the philosophy of G183: Using a contrast ratio of 3:1 with surrounding text and providing additional visual cues on focus for links or controls where color alone is used to identify them<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2016%2FNOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007%2FG183&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cbfe5d3196c8b4feab53f08d52dd038a4%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636465294680747380&sdata=kxFV9F2Lc0lbQmVVA8KfaLtIXIpjUSXQsEvE1SWQVks%3D&reserved=0>

Michael Gower
IBM Accessibility
Research

1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC  V8T 5C3
gowerm@ca.ibm.com<mailto:gowerm@ca.ibm.com>
voice: (250) 220-1146 * cel: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034



From:        James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com<mailto:james.nurthen@oracle.com>>
To:        w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Date:        2017-11-16 11:28 AM
Subject:        Re: Does 1.4.1 cover differences in state?
________________________________



On 11/16/2017 11:11 AM, Repsher, Stephen J wrote:
Okay, so you’re more or less singling out hover, but I think it then comes down to how hover is used.

A typical use case of hover is to indicate a clickable area is now under the pointer, however that information is redundant since the mouse cursor will also change so long as a proper role is in place per 4.1.2 and there’s no funny CSS business with the cursor.  I’d agree no 3:1 is required there since it is not the only means.  If the cursor did not change though, I think it should fail.  Agreed?

Sure. Sounds reasonable - although there are probably exceptions to this. I'm not sure I want to go down the route of thinking of all of them right now as I have a lot of catching up to do post TPAC - and this seems lower priority than other things.

But then take a more complex example like a drag and drop operation.  The pointer may stay with the “grabbed” cursor when dragging something over an area where the object can be dropped, and color alone on hover may be used to indicate you’ve reached a droppable area.  That should fail if not 3:1 or some other means, agreed?

Probably but I would again have to think a little more about it. If there are other accessible manners to do the same thing (which are "equivalent") this may be a case where I would allow it and fall back on a conforming alternate version.

Steve

From: James Nurthen [mailto:james.nurthen@oracle.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 1:50 PM
To: Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com><mailto:stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Does 1.4.1 cover differences in state?


Yes. Some state differences are required. 1.4.1 states:

Color is not used as the only visual means of conveying information, indicating an action, prompting a response, or distinguishing a visual element.

  *   So the "pressed" state of a toggle button is a way of conveying information so if "color" is the only way this is indicated then it needs to meet a 3:1 ratio between the pressed and unpressed colours.
  *   The same for a "selected" tab page
  *   A link with no underline falls into the either "indicates an action" or "distinguishing a visual element"
However I don't believe a hover state falls into any of these so don't believe it needs to meet this.

Regards,
james

On 11/16/2017 10:38 AM, Repsher, Stephen J wrote:
Hi James,

The proposed Graphics Contrast SC does not attempt to cover differences in state, but I think this is an important question and I’m confused by your conflicting responses (or at least that’s how I perceive it).

Going back to your words at https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017OctDec/0436.html<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__lists.w3.org_Archives_Public_w3c-2Dwai-2Dgl_2017OctDec_0436.html%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DRoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE%26r%3DCIHu8rc_0wRTTC_7DvWtiGNKjpA-3oTgbu_6ve6hP0I%26m%3DVuJ9AekS2w8s59IRyHc1bT9zLThXySuaIUzyxxWl7Lg%26s%3DLq5X_kCEn3R0hwKWQapmcU_5MOazreDdfobx5XOuaRc%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cbfe5d3196c8b4feab53f08d52dd038a4%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636465294680747380&sdata=MBmOlJzTJhWR5UNFzBapWZv3UDT7DTS8QTbYMRc7jc4%3D&reserved=0>...

Mike: There is no language requiring a contrast minimum between the states themselves. I would really like that to at least be captured in the Understanding doc, if it can't be part of the SC, because being unable to differentiate between states is as much of a problem as not being able to differentiate between controls.

James: I always fail this on 1.4.1 Use of Color: Color is not used as the only visual means of conveying information, indicating an action, prompting a response, or distinguishing a visual element. (Level A)

James: If the ratio is 3:1 or greater then it is no longer color alone (hue and lightness) so no longer fails 1.4.1. As such I don’t think this needs to be in this SC.


So where is the misunderstanding occurring here?  Do you feel 1.4.1 applies to some state differences but not others?

I think this will be an important point to ultimately clarify in the respective Understanding docs for these SC.

Steve

From: James Nurthen [mailto:james.nurthen@oracle.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2017 11:32 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
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 https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/visual-audio-contrast-without-color.html<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Furldefense.proofpoint.com%2Fv2%2Furl%3Fu%3Dhttps-3A__www.w3.org_TR_UNDERSTANDING-2DWCAG20_visual-2Daudio-2Dcontrast-2Dwithout-2Dcolor.html%26d%3DDwMGaQ%26c%3DRoP1YumCXCgaWHvlZYR8PZh8Bv7qIrMUB65eapI_JnE%26r%3DCIHu8rc_0wRTTC_7DvWtiGNKjpA-3oTgbu_6ve6hP0I%26m%3DVuJ9AekS2w8s59IRyHc1bT9zLThXySuaIUzyxxWl7Lg%26s%3DS5IeKhESG47_AOwC_OkZVER566af7qqSGDX2iNWJoaA%26e%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cjjwhite%40ets.org%7Cbfe5d3196c8b4feab53f08d52dd038a4%7C0ba6e9b760b34fae92f37e6ddd9e9b65%7C0%7C0%7C636465294680747380&sdata=cUpohw%2FFlvSPkw87zoeKz2wcmV%2FkuhFISihaRgnKKL4%3D&reserved=0>

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><mailto:james.nurthen@oracle.com>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org><mailto: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

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<sip:james.nurthen@oracle.com>
Oracle Corporate Architecture
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment

--
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: james.nurthen@oracle.com<sip:james.nurthen@oracle.com>
Oracle Corporate Architecture
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment

--
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: james.nurthen@oracle.com<sip:james.nurthen@oracle.com>
Oracle Corporate Architecture
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94065
Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment



________________________________

This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.


Thank you for your compliance.

________________________________