Re: Selection State 1.4.11

HI Nicole,

Is the background color of the table row the only visual indication that it is selected?

In most of these interfaces I’ve usually seen a check-box or similar thing to click on to select. That would be the focus of 1.4.11 if it is there, and the background change could be considered supplementary (i.e. not “Visual information required to identify” the state).

If it is the only indicator, I think it would be problematic for people with visual impairments to understand which is which, especially magnified.

An example/screenshot would help work through it though.

Kind regards,


From: "Windmann, Nicole"

Hi Alastair,

We often have tables or lists where rows can be selected for further interaction.

Also, eg. If you select a row for deletion, duplication, I understand 1.4.11 the selection needs to meet the contrast ratio 3.1, but all other content still needs to meet 4.5:1.

The designers are working on an example I can share. But this is currently our issue.


Hi Nicole,

Is there an example or screenshot you can point to?

I’m uncertain why a table row background would be in scope.

Also, is it possible to ask this on list? Otherwise you are reliant on my inbox, which is not very reliable!


From: "Windmann, Nicole" <<>>
Date: Wednesday, 26 June 2019 at 07:20
To: Alastair Campbell <<>>
Subject: WCAG 2.1 1.4.11 Non-Text Contrast

Hi Alastair,

We are part of the W3C Accesibility working group and understand most discussions.

With the 1.4.11 we see issues when it comes to selection states in complex software controls.

We have usability issues regarding conformance with WCAG 2.1 1.4.11 Non-Text Contrast. It is the selection state that makes it hard to be compliant e.g. in a table that also contains other content like interactive icons or status markers. We have checked and learned that large areas that contrast with 2:1 are also well perceivable but will not distract users as 3:1 will do. Is there a research available that shows or explains why large areas need to have 3:1 instead 2:1? It is very hard to be compliant with 3:1 without having contrast appearance like in high-contrast themes, that we also offer. Is there any chance to discuss that for WCAG 3.0?

Thanks a lot for your feedback.

Thank you and kindest regards

Nicole Windmann

Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2019 11:14:58 UTC