W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2019

Re: Proposed amendment to 1.4.11 for WCAG 2.2

From: Abma, J.D. (Jake) <Jake.Abma@ing.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 11:31:08 +0000
To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>, "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
CC: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AM6PR03MB4454CBB74B66F5CF6E0BD802F16C0@AM6PR03MB4454.eurprd03.prod.outlook.com>

+1 (but don't see the big difference in understanding, are we sure / tested this / got multiple responses this is really what people want in order to understand?)
________________________________
From: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 5:03 PM
To: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Proposed amendment to 1.4.11 for WCAG 2.2

+1 to an editorial change in 2.2

 > When Alastair was explaining his perspective on it... He said that the focus indicator could basically be ignored for 1.4.11 because it becomes part of the control as soon as the control has focus.

FWIW, I have never agreed with Alastair's interpretation there, because focus indication (and contrast) is (should be?) primarily between the control and the background, and not between the control itself in various states (although that too can be a consideration). Alastair's interpretation allows for a white 'control' (for example a radio button) on a "blue" background, where in Chrome and Safari the native focus indication is also blue - thus you cannot see the focus indication. I documented this a while back: http://john.foliot.ca/demos/focuscolor.html


JF

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 1:55 PM Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk<mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk>> wrote:
On 16/10/2019 17:04, David MacDonald wrote:
[...]
> CURRENT
> "Visual information required to identify user interface components
> ***and*** states...
>
> SUGGESTED
> Visual information required to identify user interface components ***in
> all their*** states

I'll admit that I've always understood the current one to mean the same
as the suggested one, but I can see how it could be misread. As it
doesn't change the (intended) meaning of the SC, this should be a
straightforward enough non-substantive change of normative wording.

+1

--
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk<http://www.splintered.co.uk> | https://github.com/patrickhlauke

http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com

twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke



--
​John Foliot | Principal Accessibility Strategist | W3C AC Representative
Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
deque.com<http://deque.com/>


-----------------------------------------------------------------
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 18 October 2019 11:31:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:32 UTC