Re: SC 1.4.11

Hi John,

The exception to 1.4.13 will pass WCAG 2.1 conformance today, which is
also inaccessible to people with disabilities.

Writing either the 1.4.13 or 1.4.11 exception off as browsers issue
does not help PwD. But that is what happened. I was told that we can
tackle it in Silver.

Best Regards,

On 6/20/18, John Foliot <> wrote:
> *With my Deque hat off.*
> I continue to object to (cannot live with) the narrow interpretation
> <>
> of this SC. As many have previously noted, by definition
> <> for contrast to occur,
> you must have two things - contrast is a comparison of one against the
> other, and when you change one thing there is a logical expectation that
> you will likely need to change the other.
> To illustrate my concern, I quickly knocked together a test page here:
> I have explicitly set the background as a dark-colored patterned image
> background, and set the text and hyperlinks to "white" - yet when I test
> tab focus in Chrome (Version 67.0.3396.87 (Official Build) (64-bit)) on
> Windows (perhaps *the* most probable configuration on the web today) I get
> the following:
> [alt: screen capture showing visible tab focus on a white hyperlinked
> printer icon over a dark patterned background. The focus indication is
> un-styled, and currently is a pale blue box (#274476) resulting in a
> contrast ratio of 2.2:1]
> <code>
>   <style>
>    body {background:url('
>'); background-repeat:
> repeat-x;}
>    p, a {color: #FFF;}
>   </style>
> </code>
> By accepting the narrow interpretation of this SC, this example *WILL PASS*
> WCAG 2.1 conformance today, which I find untenable. (Obviously there is a
> low contrast issue here.)
> IMHO, *writing this off as a browser issue does not help PwD* - our primary
> target constituency. Should this Working Group not also adopt the Priority
> of Constituents used in HTML5: users over authors, authors over
> implementors, implementors over code purity? If that were so, then of
> course we would insist that authors meet the needs of the user first,
> including adjusting for known browser inconsistencies whenever possible.
> SC 1.4.1 was drafted in large part to address known issues with SC 1.4.3
> Contrast (Minimum) <>, of
> which visible-focus contrast was certainly one of the concerns. To
> side-step this now is to my mind fundamentally wrong: who are we advocating
> for - users or authors?
> Can someone who advocates for the narrow interpretation provide a cognizant
> explanation as to how and why this is acceptable? How do we explain this
> visually obvious gap in interpretation, one that even a novice evaluator
> would recognize as being quite wrong?
> Thanks in advance.
> ​JF​
> --
> John Foliot
> Principal Accessibility Strategist
> Deque Systems Inc.
> Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion

Laura L. Carlson

Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2018 17:19:40 UTC