Re: Resolving 1.4.11

Thanks Andrew

On Wed, May 30, 2018, 11:12 PM Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
wrote:

> Katie,
>
> The Low Vision Task Force is meeting tomorrow and will make sure that the
> members register their opinions on this CFC and will communicate the
> overall opinion of the TF.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> AWK
>
>
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
>
> Adobe
>
>
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
> *From: *Katie GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, May 30, 2018 at 16:56
> *To: *Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
> *Cc: *David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, Michael Gower <
> michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, WCAG <
> w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: Resolving 1.4.11
>
>
>
> Wilco,
>
>
>
> I did NOT +1 this or the CFC as I feel this has changed the SC too much,
> and I asked for a Consensus Opinion for the Low Vision Task Force before
> this kind of change is accepted. I am with you!
>
>
> ** katie **
>
> *Katie Haritos-Shea *
>
> *Principal ICT Accessibility Architect,  W3C Advisory Committee Rep for
> Knowbility *
>
> *WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA/QA/FinServ/FinTech/Privacy, **IAAP CPACC+WAS
> = **CPWA*
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.accessibilityassociation.org%2Fcpwacertificants&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C4a4c6c393fcf4e3238b608d5c66fcb90%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636633105882292602&sdata=vsSHKz3%2F1KrSpESgZ6aljhAGaMXo8Q1pyE79B%2FHv5LY%3D&reserved=0>
>
> *Cell: **703-371-5545* <703-371-5545> *|* *ryladog@gmail.com*
> <ryladog@gmail.com> *|* *Oakton, VA **|* *LinkedIn Profile*
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fkatieharitosshea%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C4a4c6c393fcf4e3238b608d5c66fcb90%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636633105882292602&sdata=LfQrXL2wzKXuK7EJg%2BWzCk0b2vRKAGKgMz6p7%2B4nre0%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did,
> but people will never forget how you made them feel.......
>
> Our scars remind us of where we have been........they do not have to
> dictate where we are going.
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I admit the SC now has a lot of room for interpretation from evaluators,
> but that's better than forcing a border around everything.
>
>
>
> I'm sorry but that's just heartbreaking to read. I find it hard to believe
> that everyone that +1'ed this change even agrees on what "required to
> identify" means, let alone the rest of the world who will have to work with
> it. This kind of "compromisy" language is why we tell developers not to
> read WCAG. Leave it to the experts. I was genuinely disappointed when I
> read this thread last night. This was the one SC in WCAG 2.1 that I think
> could have some significant parts of it automated. Designers & developers
> using any sort of tooling could have known about this issue. Now we're down
> to just those that work for an organisation that can afford to have an
> expert look at it.
>
>
>
> I'm not going to downvote it - I know that you're all correct about
> this... but it did make me sad. And I do think it's worth taking more care
> to look at the "accessibility" of WCAG testing, in the other sense of the
> word the next time around.
>
>
>
> W
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 8:57 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >  Would people would fail it for lacking visual identifying
> characteristics on an input? Or does the lack of visual information for
> *all *users about the input mean this is a design issue, not an
> accessibility issue?
>
>
>
> I don't think we can say visual cues are necessary to pass this SC, but
> if  cues *are* used that are required to identify the component, then they
> need to be 3:1.
>
>
>
> The Funka example ... the placement of the buttons is consistent with a
> menu and they are laid out as a nav menu would be, so under our discussion
> of interpretation yesterday I would not fail it...
>
>
>
> I admit the SC now has a lot of room for interpretation from evaluators,
> but that's better than forcing a border around everything.
>
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn
>
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fin%2Fdavidmacdonald100&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C4a4c6c393fcf4e3238b608d5c66fcb90%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636633105882302607&sdata=zCf8FJ2erlLMa6TOsDDOZqHhLZu8mpJzSrABG%2FNTZdc%3D&reserved=0>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fdavidmacd&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C4a4c6c393fcf4e3238b608d5c66fcb90%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636633105882302607&sdata=UpnTSlQcMnG0%2FNffXn4Ybb1c1ZXra1uDxmZjlfVKU3U%3D&reserved=0>
>
> GitHub
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2FDavidMacDonald&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C4a4c6c393fcf4e3238b608d5c66fcb90%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636633105882312621&sdata=GB%2Bwmb76ckDAYoQmVwxVWl72hWb7AOnUc38jMHoj%2BBM%3D&reserved=0>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.can-adapt.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C4a4c6c393fcf4e3238b608d5c66fcb90%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636633105882312621&sdata=ncyMhAINP%2F4deJ1XnXdxs3t%2Fv9sWgkym2aXpwCWM0Xw%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
>
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidmacd.com%2Fdisclaimer.html&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C4a4c6c393fcf4e3238b608d5c66fcb90%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636633105882322630&sdata=MaaKjys8LpHZ5%2BEKwGxMPvVJ38Sr5EFBlIrbAwyvE9k%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 2:20 PM, Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>
> wrote:
>
> I wasn't sure whether to bring this up on the CFC or in this thread, but I
> would like to understand whether the first example you gave, the
> Knowbility
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fknowbility.org%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C4a4c6c393fcf4e3238b608d5c66fcb90%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636633105882322630&sdata=uUl%2F9LiXIGaHz3bBU2jo6pJNSxnAe8kMMIVb1Vmdlq8%3D&reserved=0>Search
> mechanism, would be considered to pass the rewording of 1.4.11.
> To me, this lacks any visual indication that it is an input field. It is
> indistinguishable from the links immediately below it. The new SC wording
> states "Visual information required to identify user interface
> components" needs to meet a 3:1 ratio.
> Would people would fail it for lacking visual identifying characteristics
> on an input? Or does the lack of visual information for *all *users about
> the input mean this is a design issue, not an accessibility issue?
> I also want to understand whether folks think Funka's questions about
> their buttons have been resolved with this new change. Is each button's
> shape, defined by a flat colour, part of the visual information required to
> ID each as a button?
> Is it up to the tester to make that call, and thus decide whether the
> button color needs to meet 3:1?
>
> We just had specific questions on a call here at IBM about some new
> low-contrast UI components, and whether we had leeway to fail them with the
> new wording or had to find some other means of convincing the designers to
> rethink the components.
>
> Michael Gower
> IBM Accessibility
> Research
>
> 1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.google.com%2F%3Fq%3D1803%2BDouglas%2BStreet%2C%2BVictoria%2C%2BBC%2B%2BV8T%2B5C3%26entry%3Dgmail%26source%3Dg&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C4a4c6c393fcf4e3238b608d5c66fcb90%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636633105882332635&sdata=Cvjjs8f3jdTc9irPyCd%2BIqMKSWHfZA0A%2BMt5LtwuzfU%3D&reserved=0>
>  V8T 5C3
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.google.com%2F%3Fq%3D1803%2BDouglas%2BStreet%2C%2BVictoria%2C%2BBC%2B%2BV8T%2B5C3%26entry%3Dgmail%26source%3Dg&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C4a4c6c393fcf4e3238b608d5c66fcb90%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636633105882332635&sdata=Cvjjs8f3jdTc9irPyCd%2BIqMKSWHfZA0A%2BMt5LtwuzfU%3D&reserved=0>
> gowerm@ca.ibm.com
> cellular: (250) 661-0098 *
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.google.com%2F%3Fq%3D1803%2BDouglas%2BStreet%2C%2BVictoria%2C%2BBC%2B%2B%25C2%25A0%2BV8T%2B5C3%26entry%3Dgmail%26source%3Dg&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C4a4c6c393fcf4e3238b608d5c66fcb90%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636633105882342635&sdata=5RTZkI1aU2KEj4ZtcB9XU4AE%2FD7hKgRVZVbnkrny8xc%3D&reserved=0>fax:
> (250) 220-8034
>
>
>
> From:
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmaps.google.com%2F%3Fq%3D1803%2BDouglas%2BStreet%2C%2BVictoria%2C%2BBC%2B%2B%25C2%25A0%2BV8T%2B5C3%26entry%3Dgmail%26source%3Dg&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C4a4c6c393fcf4e3238b608d5c66fcb90%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636633105882342635&sdata=5RTZkI1aU2KEj4ZtcB9XU4AE%2FD7hKgRVZVbnkrny8xc%3D&reserved=0>
>      Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
> To:        WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Date:        2018-05-26 03:46 PM
> Subject:        Resolving 1.4.11
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> AGWG’ers,
>
>
>
> **WARNING – lengthy but important and time-critical email!**
>
>
>
> We have a few concerns raised about 1.4.11 Non-text contrast:
>
>
>
> 1.        Concern from Funka (see Word doc attachment at
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2018May/0001.html
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.w3.org%2FArchives%2FPublic%2Fpublic-comments-wcag20%2F2018May%2F0001.html&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C4a4c6c393fcf4e3238b608d5c66fcb90%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636633105882352644&sdata=yyI%2FJ%2BG4nCIAEPOkz%2B0F3A2OxcpUdHVwgYAHiY%2B6kc8%3D&reserved=0>)
> that the Color limitations for buttons with text on a colored background
> are too limiting. People either won’t be able to use yellow or will need to
> use an extra border and that will be unpopular for designers. This is the
> same issue as the concern about boundaries in Issue 914:
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/914
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2Fissues%2F914&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C4a4c6c393fcf4e3238b608d5c66fcb90%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636633105882352644&sdata=vQgJ3m8VLhYh0bzsL%2B8LoWzwDlOAvveG6zlVOQbjrYg%3D&reserved=0>.
>
>
> 2.        Does the hover state indicator need to have 3:1? (Issue 913:
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/913
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2Fissues%2F913&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C4a4c6c393fcf4e3238b608d5c66fcb90%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636633105882362653&sdata=bTaqk1%2FPa6x8YfNisRWNJoKOZy2NkgF066867uu6K9g%3D&reserved=0>
> )
>
>
>
> *So, what do we do? I think that it helps to look at a bunch of examples:*
>
>
>
> As a reminder, this is the SC text:
>
> 1.4.11
>
> The visual presentation
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FWCAG21%2F%23dfn-presentation&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C4a4c6c393fcf4e3238b608d5c66fcb90%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636633105882362653&sdata=4QTMYvJaWBeAprnqWfl6PKX%2FTDKyYEz6WK9L0S3AXk0%3D&reserved=0>of
> the following have a contrast ratio
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FWCAG21%2F%23dfn-contrast-ratio&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C4a4c6c393fcf4e3238b608d5c66fcb90%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636633105882372658&sdata=o0YSfSLE%2FSJnpuU73jGHfRWTMCuvqA0I%2Fl7kqzgQG9c%3D&reserved=0>
> of at least 3:1 against adjacent color(s):
>
> *User Interface Components*
>
> Visual information used to indicate states
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FWCAG21%2F%23dfn-states&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C4a4c6c393fcf4e3238b608d5c66fcb90%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636633105882372658&sdata=uaVQjBxE58nfH%2BeZe3sLIjBn1cm7kRQWpEHOR4whTKM%3D&reserved=0>and
> boundaries of user interface components
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FWCAG21%2F%23dfn-user-interface-components&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C4a4c6c393fcf4e3238b608d5c66fcb90%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636633105882382663&sdata=6e87M0Xij2Z2uYB9vppyrDFgNduXBZqYQiGdRoCWpZ4%3D&reserved=0>,
> except for inactive components or where the appearance of the component is
> determined by the user agent and not modified by the author;
>
> *Graphical Objects*
>
> Parts of graphics required to understand the content, except when a
> particular presentation of graphics is essential
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FWCAG21%2F%23dfn-essential&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C4a4c6c393fcf4e3238b608d5c66fcb90%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636633105882382663&sdata=dN3G5pIZ4bKFdEHc4gbtJf4qvf6ilR8aUL7IsfPbvZU%3D&reserved=0>to
> the information being conveyed.
>
>
>
>
>
> 1.        Knowbility’s search box. There is 4.5:1 text that indicates
> that there is something for the user to activate. It is a search box and
> when you click on it the placeholder text shifts to the left and exposes
> the full area of the input.
>
>
>
> [image: cid:_4_0C6631A00C662D900064BAAE8825829D]
>
> [image: cid:_4_0C6636400C6633D40064BAAE8825829D]
>
>
>
> 2.        Github’s tab interface. It is pretty clear which tab has the
> selected state because of the red accent, but there is definitely not 3:1
> contrast between the background colors of “code” and “issues”, nor is the
> line between these 3:1.
>
> [image: cid:_4_0C6642D40C6640680064BAAE8825829D]
>
>
>
> 3.        Github buttons. For the “unwatch” button, the contrast between
> the inside of the button and the outside is 1.08:1, and between the border
> line and the outside background is 1.62:1. The contrast between the unwatch
> text and the little triangle that indicates the drop down is 13.79:1.
>
> [image: cid:_4_0C664DF40C664B880064BAAE8825829D]
>
> 4.        Github buttons #2. The contrast everywhere is sufficient except
> in the thin border line around the not-currently-selected items.
>
> [image: cid:_4_0C6657840C6655180064BAAE8825829D]
>
> 5.        New WAI site. The difference in contrast between a hovered item
> and a non-hovered item in the nav is 1:40:1, but there is a high-contrast
> underline that is also part of the hover.
>
> [image: cid:_4_0C665FA40C665D380064BAAE8825829D]
>
> 6.        CNN. Contrast of hovered and non-hovered text is greater than
> 4.5:1. Contrast between the hovered and non-hovered text is 1.84:1.
>
> [image: cid:_4_0C6667900C6665240064BAAE8825829D]
>
>
>
> 7.        Adobe. The light gray background appears on hover and the tiny
> little triangle appears. The text has sufficient contrast in hover and
> non-hover states, but the hover background and triangle don’t.
>
>
>
> [image: cid:_4_0C6674F00C6672840064BAAE8825829D]
>
>
>
> 8.        LevelAccess – high-contrast throughout.
>
>
>
> [image: cid:_4_0C6681B40C667F480064BAAE8825829D]
>
>
>
> 9.        Funka. Active/selected tab shows sufficient contrast for state.
> The non-selected tabs don’t use color to indicate the boundaries.
>
> [image: cid:_4_0C668C380C6689CC0064BAAE8825829D]
>
>
>
> 10.        Funka Search. The three items in the top nav – the left two
> don’t use color to indicate the boundary. The right button does but the
> contrast isn’t 3:1.
>
> [image: cid:_4_0C65B0C40C65AF740064BAAE8825829D]
>
> 11.        Funka search open. Once the search button is open, everything
> seems to have suffient 4.5/3:1 contrast.
>
> [image: cid:_4_0C65B7B80C65B5780064BAAE8825829D]
>
>
>
> 12.        Material design. Text fields come in two forms. The example on
> the left has a field background that is less than 3:1 with the background,
> but the line marking the bottom boundary of the field is 3.28:1 on the
> background. For the triangle in the drop down the ratio is 3.02:1 relative
> to the field background.  On the right, the border has a 3.64:1 ratio to
> the background, but it goes all the way around.
>
> [image: cid:_4_0C65C3940C65C1280064BAAE8825829D]
>
>
>
> 13.        Material design selection. The selected item on the left has a
> greater than 3:1 ratio for the checked/unchecked box, but the purple
> background is not 3:1. On the right, the purple activated color has >6:1
> contrast against the light purple and >7:1 against the white, but the
> purple background is less than 3:1 against the white.
>
> [image: cid:_4_0C65CEE00C65CC740064BAAE8825829D]
>
>
>
> 14.        GoFundMe donate page: The “your name” label text (not properly
> labeled) is >4.5:1, but the field border and placeholder text are less than
> 3:1.
>
> [image: cid:_4_0C65D9740C65D7080064BAAE8825829D]
>
> 15.        Buttons with specific boundaries – contrast between states is
> 1.75:1, so to some people this just looks like one green area.
>
> [image: cid:_4_0C65E15C0C65DEF00064BAAE8825829D]
>
>
>
> 16.        Facebook marketplace active area indicator. The greatest
> contrast is the whitish background of groups and the thin border between
> that and the light grey background. 1.22:1 contrast.
>
> [image: cid:_4_0C65EC140C65E9A80064BAAE8825829D]
>
>
>
> 17.        Bootstrap checkbox. The checkbox is 1.30:1 contrast relative
> to the background.
>
> [image: cid:_2_0C65F6680C65F3FC0064BAAE8825829D]
>
> https://getbootstrap.com/docs/4.1/components/forms/#inlineFormCustomSelect
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgetbootstrap.com%2Fdocs%2F4.1%2Fcomponents%2Fforms%2F%23inlineFormCustomSelect&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C05736cdf6373468230e408d5c31ae33d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636629442639781231&sdata=TMFTI316LNA3T8bUUPXyKIZFx7xFqdw5wbyvsbke4Tw%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Interpretation:*
>
> My interpretation of the SC, and what I believe that the WG intended is
> that:
>
> 1.        Visual information that is important to identifying the state
> or existence (boundary) needs to be at least 3:1.
>
> 2.        All visual aspects of a UI Component at not required to meet
> 3:1, only if it is required to identity the state or existence of the
> control.
>
> 3.        For some components, text that is 4.5:1 is entirely sufficient
> to meet the requirements of 1.4.11.
>
> a.        Are we requiring a full boundary around links (which are UI
> Components)? I don’t believe so.
>
> b.        Are we ok with a set of tabs like in example #9 above, or does
> each tab need a full boundary to indicate the click area? I believe so.
>
> 4.        If a color is less than 3:1, you need to pretend that it
> doesn’t exist at all and assess whether the component passes based on other
> information.
>
> a.        Compare the same set of tabs in example #9 and consider whether
> it is less accessible if the non-active tabs have a pale color background.
>
> 5.        Hover is covered, but not relative to the component’s own
> non-hover state. What is covered is that the hover state needs to meet the
> 3:1 ratio for any non-text content. This means that if there is an icon in
> a button that fades out when hovered, it would fail (just like is the case
> for 1.4.3 if text in a hovered button fades on hover).
>
>
>
> *With my interpretation the examples above are rated:*
>
> 1.        Pass
>
> 2.        Borderline fail – perhaps an uncomfortable pass?
>
> 3.        Pass
>
> 4.        Pass
>
> 5.        Pass
>
> 6.        Pass
>
> 7.        Pass
>
> 8.        Pass
>
> 9.        Pass
>
> 10.        Pass
>
> 11.        Pass
>
> 12.        Pass – the right side example passes easily. The left side,
> with the underline border is, I think, an uncomfortable pass. Like a lined
> paper form, people can figure out the rough size of the fields by proximity
> and spacing, so one line is minimally sufficient.
>
> 13.        Pass
>
> 14.        Is interesting – this example clearly fails, but if the
> control was properly associated with the label would that help since that
> creates a clickable region that has sufficient contrast and then the
> control becomes more visible when focused because of the focus rectangle or
> input carat?
>
> 15.        Fail – the contrast for the boundary is particularly
> significant in this situation.
>
> 16.        Fail – the contrast for the selected state. This is an example
> of communicating information by color alone and the contrast doesn’t make
> up for the color.
>
> 17.        Fail - Similar to #14. Some might argue that if the label is
> properly associated that this makes the text label and image part of one
> control and therefore ok, and we should be clear about that in a technique
> or failure.
>
>
>
> If you find that you are agreeing that my interpretation reflects the
> intent of the Working Group, or that you are disagreeing that it reflects
> the intent of the Working Group, please say so.
>
>
>
> I have a pull request that implements changes in the Understanding
> document in line with this:
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/pull/943/files?utf8=
> <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2Fpull%2F943%2Ffiles%3Futf8%3D&data=02%7C01%7Cakirkpat%40adobe.com%7C4a4c6c393fcf4e3238b608d5c66fcb90%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636633105882392672&sdata=dLjGqXgL94hnim9JKx3I04AdsQibdaCwjOoTux4%2FmEw%3D&reserved=0>
> ✓&diff=split
>
>
>
> *Is there a downside?*
>
> One of the comments we received requested that we implement a requirement
> for a thicker boundary around components. This would unquestionably help
> people, but also creates problems in that we are specifying UI Components,
> including links and other interactive controls. Are we requiring that
> individual items within a select/drop down show clear boundaries since each
> is a separate clickable region? Both of these come into play if the strict
> interpretation of this SC is the intent of the group.
>
>
>
> I believe that we need to be unified and clear about this SC’s
> interpretation, and soon!
>
>
>
> AWK
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *Wilco Fiers*
>
> Senior Accessibility Engineer - Co-facilitator WCAG-ACT - Chair Auto-WCAG
>
> [image: cid:BCBD7D4B-677E-4B95-AE3F-60005DBD9EE4]
>
>
>