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

Re: Focus visible (enh) update

From: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 23:18:30 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEy-OxGzhzcoAg9Vsnnm7LBvVgR-2dNg84FCuq7tkSJVAQJ5Qg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
Cc: AlastairCampbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sailesh,

Perhaps you remember, there used to be a whole W3C working group dedicated
to user agent Accessibility. It was squashed by certain members. It was
part of the trio of specs, WCAG, UAAG and ATAG that was meant to
harmoniously work together.  Unfortunately the pushback was to much.

On Fri, Oct 18, 2019, 8:49 PM Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
wrote:

> Alastair notes: "If browsers reliably met the requirement in the
> proposed SC, authors wouldn't have to do anything".
> There should simply be a UAG SC mandating browser makers do this first.
> I am only referring  to essential components of  Web accessibility:
> Web accessibility depends not only on accessible content but also on
> accessible Web browsers and other user agents.
> There is no need to impose  a fallback requirement for   content
> authors. This increases the cost of ensuring accessibility immensely:
> figuring out algorithms, testing content, training testers, etc.
> Maybe there should be a W3C task force  to urge UA makers to follow
> guidelines,  demand accountability, and not use hacky methods like
> Jonathan stated in widely deployed apps that are used directly by end
> users.
>
> Respectfully,
> Sailesh
>
>
> On 10/18/19, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
> > Sailesh wrote:
> >> Maybe browser makers should be urged to  improve the default focus
> >> indicator area
> >> and contrast issues that are noted as accessibility concerns.
> >
> > If browsers reliably met the requirement in the proposed SC, authors
> > wouldn't have to do anything. Also, this SC came from the non-text
> contrast
> > SC not working well enough for focus styles, the original intent was to
> > cover it.
> >
> > People have been asking browsers for better focus styles [1], but it
> hasn't
> > gotten anywhere.
> >
> > If authors rely on browser defaults, there are several known instances
> [2]
> > where it is difficult or impossible to see:
> > - Chrome/Safari has a blue indicator, invisible on a blue background.
> > - Firefox uses 'currentColor', so a link/button with a dark background
> and
> > white text would have a white indicator, on a white background.
> > - The 1px dotted outline approach  (FF/IE/Edge) is hard to see for
> everyone
> > in many circumstances.
> >
> > If an author has provided a custom focus style (and sites which don't are
> > rare from the sites we audit), there is currently little definition of
> > 'visible'. Non-text contrast measures 'adjacent' colors, which is not an
> > effective measure for focus styles which are dynamic.
> >
> > As David and Jon have mentioned, user-agent tools are relatively unknown
> (or
> > v. technical) for users, and when used are not effective across all
> sites.
> > There are author things that need to  be done for complex sites where it
> > defines a complex interface, and even simple sites in particular
> scenarios.
> >
> > So to return to the beginning of this email: I think we should define a
> > minimum bar for 'visible', which can be achieved by user-agents or
> authors.
> > In general authors will need to meet it for now, but if user agents deal
> > with it, great!
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > -Alastair
> >
> > 1] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1284235
> > 2]
> https://adrianroselli.com/2017/02/avoid-default-browser-focus-styles.html
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Sailesh Panchang
> Principal Accessibility Consultant
> Deque Systems Inc
> 381 Elden Street, Suite 2000, Herndon, VA 20170
> Mobile: 571-344-1765
>
>
Received on Saturday, 19 October 2019 03:18:52 UTC

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