Re: Visual Indicators

Hi All

I've added an OPTION 3 to the spreadsheet which is a fallback passive SC
based on the text spacing SC ...


Plain language:
"Don't do anything that overrides a browser plugin's ability to override
CSS to create outlines on buttons and underlines on links."

In content implemented using markup languages that support visual adaptation
of user interface components
<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-user-interface-components>, one of the
following is true, with no loss of content or functionality, and by
changing no other style property:

   1.

   A user agent or plugin can adjust:
   -

      Button and input borders up to 3px (CSS) in width
      -

      link underlines up to 2px (CSS) in width
      2.

   There is a mechanism available on the page where
   -

      Button and input have borders with at least a 3:1 ratio
      -

      link underlines with at least a 3:1 ratio
      3.

   On page load:
   -

      Buttons and inputs have borders with at least a 3:1 ratio
      -

      link underlines up to 1px (CSS) in width with at least a 3:1 ratio

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WhZAbswvPHs7A3stfqM_ATsaBHPeGbHtARcmaKMck1U/edit?usp=sharing

Cheers,

David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  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>


On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 12:20 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> I’m trying to get to some conclusion from this thread, focusing on what
> people are suggesting to change (and to paraphrase people horribly):
>
>
>
>    - Gundula would like to widen the scope back to it’s original (all
>    controls provide affordance) but within a process, and avoid overlap from
>    referencing inline links.
>    - Andrew & JohnF are concern with requiring underlines/icons when
>    there are examples (like Google results) which would fail but appear to
>    have a clear expectation of being links (i.e. a false-fail). Design
>    push-back would also be expected. Personalisation seems a better option.
>    - JonA is concerned about defining what is part of a process or not.
>    - The COGA TF (via Rachael) are concerned the current version was
>    missing the intent and proposed a new version:
>
>
>
> “Interactive elements do not rely solely on spacing or a single visually
> identifiable characteristic to differentiate them from static elements,
> except for the following:
>
>    - An underline is sufficient to indicate a link is interactive
>    - A color difference is sufficient to indicate an element is disabled
>    - The control is part of a group of controls that has a visual
>    indicator for the group”
>
>
>
> My first impression of that update is that “a single visually identifiable
> characteristic” needs some explanation, I’m not sure how to apply that.
> Also, if the single characteristic were a border or background, wouldn’t
> that be ok?
>
>
>
> Overall, we seem to be oscillating between what we would like (the
> original affordances SC) and a very narrow version focusing on some
> specific aspects.
>
>
>
> The affordances version needs a huge amount of research/testing to define
> what visual aspects are needed to make something appear interactive.
>
>
>
> The narrower versions still suffer from creating false-positives and being
> very prescriptive about particular design aspects. IMHO being prescriptive
> isn’t necessarily a blocker, but if people can point to false positives
> then it is undermined.
>
>
>
> I’m struggling to see a path forward for this one on 2.2 timescales, we
> really need that research on what standard/core affordances are for various
> controls to align the SC/guideline text with the exact issues.
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>