Re: Visual Indicators

AWK writes:

"I support the user need and trying to identify an SC that addresses the
need, but this may need to be handled by *user preferences,
personalization, or plugins*. Firefox already allows users to set links to
be underlined, so plugins aren’t even needed with that browser.



My core question is *whether the existence of readily available tools that
users can use to meet this SC would be regarded as sufficient*. If not, I
expect that this will not survive comments."


A huge +1

If I've learned anything over the past 20+ years of WCAG, it's that the
more prescriptive we become, the more resistance we will encounter.

One of the core tenets of the on-going Personalization work is that *the
end-user will be responsible for the final 'rendering'* so long as the code
is properly marked-up to support the personalization. It is *NOT* the
responsibility of the browser or content owner to address every need of
every user, but rather for the content owner to provide the appropriate
condition(s) for the personalization/customization to be had.

This is not unlike our expectation that when we furnish an "alt text" to a
non-textual item, that *the browser itself will not natively provide that
alternative text to all users by default*, but rather that the information
is there if and when a specific user requires it.

JF

On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 6:49 PM Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>
wrote:

> From my read of the text contrast >= 4.5:1 could still be used to indicate
> links.   My request for inline links that are not part of process to be
> included can be removed if it’s going to cause the success criterion to not
> be accepted.  However, I suspect that objections from some would still
> remain to the SC as links including inline links can be used as part of a
> process and a process is pretty open term.
>
>
>
> Point 1: The term process could be interpreted vary broadly.  The settings
> link in Google could be seen as part of a process – the process of changing
> a setting – setting the language, filters, or changing your password.  Even
> using the search feature of a website like Google might be considered a
> process – each part of the process is required to complete the activity of
> performing a search just like selecting a product from a site is part of a
> process of purchasing a product.  Activating a link to “bold” text might be
> a process – you have to select text, activate the “b” button in order to
> bold content.
>
>
>
> Point 2: Similarly, if links are not inline but are part of a process and
> space around the element sets them apart – do they need some other
> indicator such as the “settings” link in Google.   Since spacing of
> elements can’t be used would this require the settings text link to have
> underline, icon or a border?     I assume yes – please correct me if I am
> wrong.
>
>
>
> Point 3. An example in the document indicates that an input field that is
> required requires a border.  While I agree with this – the wording of the
> proposed success criteria doesn’t seem to cover this example if text
> spacing, font, size, etc. are not the differentiator.  Do we need to update
> the wording of the criterion to cover this or am I missing something?
>
>
>
> Point 4.  Do we want an exception for controls where there is another
> control on the page that does meet the requirements but one control doesn’t
> and they both perform the same action?
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 8, 2020 6:22 PM
> *To:* David Fazio <dfazio@helixopp.com>; Niemann, Gundula <
> gundula.niemann@sap.com>; David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com>; WCAG <
> w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Visual Indicators
>
>
>
> *CAUTION:* This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
> the content is safe.
>
>
>
> To clarify an aspect that I’ve been uncomfortable with: does this mean
> that we are requiring that text links have underlines?
>
>
>
> As an example, see https://www.google.com/search?q=WCAG – there are no
> underlined links. Some links are blue (4.6:1 contrast against non-link text
> color so meets non-text contrast) and larger text. Since the links are
> larger text and appear as a result of appearing in a list of search results
> so there is a heightened expectation that there will be links, I expect
> that we will encounter a lot of push-back on requiring underlines.
>
>
>
> Amazon.com is similarly free of links without underlines.
>
>
>
> I understand that the SC doesn’t strictly require that links are
> underlined – each link could have a little link icon next to it also, or
> some other visual indication.
>
>
>
> I support the user need and trying to identify an SC that addresses the
> need, but this may need to be handled by user preferences, personalization,
> or plugins. Firefox already allows users to set links to be underlined, so
> plugins aren’t even needed with that browser.
>
>
>
> My core question is whether the existence of readily available tools that
> users can use to meet this SC would be regarded as sufficient. If not, I
> expect that this will not survive comments.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> AWK
>
>
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>
> Head of Accessibility
>
> Adobe
>
>
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
>
>
> *From: *David Fazio <dfazio@helixopp.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 2:58 PM
> *To: *"Niemann, Gundula" <gundula.niemann@sap.com>, David MacDonald <
> david@can-adapt.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: Visual Indicators
> *Resent-From: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Resent-Date: *Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 2:58 PM
>
>
>
> I’d also like to suggest/request an edit to the exception *“*An underline
> is a sufficient indicator that a control is actionable.”
>
>
>
> I would prefer this only apply to text links. otherwise I think it would
> be very problematic to our COGA user needs
>
>
>
> DF
>
> This message was Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse any typographic
> errors.
>
>
>
> On Apr 8, 2020, at 11:37 AM, David Fazio <dfazio@helixopp.com> wrote:
>
> We have done a lot of work, this past year, to identify and address some
> critical user needs in COGA. In reference to this SC they would be:
>
>
>
> Helping users understand what things are and how to use them;
>
>
>
> Using clear and understandable content;
>
>
>
> Preventing the user from making mistakes
>
>
>
> Also:
>
>
>
> As I briefly mentioned, when a user browses a page they rely on “top-down
> attention”. This is a voluntary, narrow minded, tunnel vision, effort that
> is driven by internal predispositions of what the user expects to find
> (what it would look like). In doing so, they filter out most all other
> information that doesn’t meet their predisposed expectations (we rely on
> past experiences for this). This creates a high probability of
> “inattentional blindness, which is failing to notice something because it
> doesn’t meet your internal, or sub-conscious, expectations. In order for a
> stimulus to catch your attention it must be “salient”. This means it must
> have some logical relationship to the background, as well as your internal
> expectations, while also having prominent characteristics that make it
> stound out as different.
>
>
>
> Using clear, salient, visual indicators helps users reduce mental fatigue,
> because the content jumps out at you in a process known as “bottom up
> attention, which is involuntary. It also helps users understand content
> (what it is, what it does), and helps prevent performing the wrong action.
> Text links aren’t typically used to perform processes or functions.
> Buttons, and controls are, which probably sounds redundant.
>
>
>
> So, I am in favor of expanding the scope.
>
>
>
> David Fazio
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *"Niemann, Gundula" <gundula.niemann@sap.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 9:36 AM
> *To: *David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject: *RE: Visual Indicators
> *Resent-From: *<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Resent-Date: *Wednesday, April 8, 2020 at 9:36 AM
>
>
>
> Hello David, hello all,
>
>
>
> in fact we do not agree to widen the scope of the upcoming “Visual
> Indicators” Success Criterion to inline links in a block of text,
>
> as inline links are handled in SC 1.4.1, and the Success Criteria should
> be free of overlaps.
>
> For easier reference, I linked some documents which are relevant in this
> context.
>
> Some are from WCAG 2.0, some are from WCAG 2.1.
>
> Use of Color:
> Understanding SC 1.4.1 (in WCAG 2.0)
>
> Section Techniques and Failures for Success Criterion 1.4.1 - Use of Color
>
>
> https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/visual-audio-contrast-without-color.html
>
>
> Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.1: Use of Color
>
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/use-of-color.html
>
>
> Using a contrast ratio of 3:1 with surrounding text and providing
> additional visual cues on focus for links or controls where color alone is
> used to identify them
>
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/general/G183
>
>
>
> F73: Failure of Success Criterion 1.4.1 due to creating links that are not
> visually evident without color vision
>
> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/F73.html
>
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/failures/F73
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Gundula
>
>
>
> ----------
>
> Dr. Gundula Niemann
>
> SAP Accessibility Competence Center
>
> SAP SE
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com>
> *Sent:* Dienstag, 7. April 2020 19:32
> *To:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Visual Indicators
>
>
>
> Hi all
>
>
>
> On the call John Avila, John Kirkwood and Brooks said they would like to
> see the scope of the Visual Indicators SC widened. Here is my attempt to do
> that while not impacting current design conventions.
>
>
>
>       *Visual Indicators**:* For controls needed to progress or complete
> a process, and inline links in a block of text, differences in spacing
> between elements, typeface, font size, or font style are not used as the
> only visual means of conveying interaction.
>
>
>              *Exception:* An underline is a sufficient indicator that a
> control is actionable.
>
>
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WhZAbswvPHs7A3stfqM_ATsaBHPeGbHtARcmaKMck1U/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Mobile:  613.806.9005
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
>
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
>
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>
>

-- 
*​John Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Strategist | W3C AC Representative
Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
deque.com