Re: Understanding doc 1.4.11, updates

Hi Jake,

> About 3, functional / value states will be even more of a discussion point when for instance adding ARIA states / values, as these were recently extended.
…
> I can not say otherwise than “yes” , they are part. (or the SC needs to be broken up to exempt those, or the definition need to be adjusted, but we won’t / can’t).

Well, there is covered in terms of:

  1.  The component in each state has contrast with its adjacent colours.
  2.  The component’s states  also have contrast with each other.

If you agree with 2:
“2. States do not have to be differentiated within the component”

How do you also agree with 3?
“3. Functional / value states do require differentiation via ‘adjacent’ background. “

(Not a rhetorical question, I’d love to find a way!)

-Alastair


From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]
Sent: zondag 16 december 2018 0:24
To: Abma, J.D. (Jake) <Jake.Abma@ing.com>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Understanding doc 1.4.11, updates

Hi Jake,


The 1st part of question 3 is: Do you agree that ‘functional states’ are covered by the current SC text.

Having agreed with 2 (“States do not have to be differentiated within the component, e.g. hover is not required”), we would need to establish how/why these other states are covered.

If the group decides that functional states aren’t covered (except that the component must maintain contrast) then we would look at another SC to fill the gap, such as the one Detlev suggested here:
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/559


Cheers,

-Alastair



-----------------------------------------------------------------

ATTENTION:

The information in this e-mail is confidential and only meant for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, don't use or disclose it in any way. Please let the sender know and delete the message immediately.

-----------------------------------------------------------------