RE: Research for Visual Indicators

Hi Everyone,



With chair hat off, I'd like to reply to some points:



Rachael wrote:

> we would need to generalize the SC to something broader such as "Interactive user interface components are visually distinct from non-interactive content" then discuss the various attributes that can be used in the understanding document. I brought this up in the last meeting and the objection to this approach, which has merit, is that it is so broad it isn't useful.



Broadness brings a few issues, the main one for me is that it isn’t possible to put a page in front of everyone and agree what passes/fails. (Ideally people looking at it independently, which is what we should aim for, but I’m not sure if we’d agree whilst looking at it together?)





David wrote:

> In the Google doc I pointed out the effectiveness of some of the different cues. Pop out was the most effective



From reading the research, “pop-out” was an umbrella term that included all the other cues, it wasn’t a helpful term in itself. Luminance (difference) & contrast are the same thing, so that leaves us with:

  *   Contrast
  *   Size
  *   Shape



And Rachael included colour, spacing & complexity of surroundings. Even then, there are still questions of ‘how much’ of each is enough?



For the examples in the document it would be very helpful to say which links within each example passed/failed, as from a screenshot we can’t tell which things are interactive, or which things you think fail.





Abi wrote:

> whether it is appropriate to recommend a new SC when there is little research, I have always approached this proposal as closing a gap in the current WCAG 2.1 which has become more vital now that the majority of web interactions are undertaken on touch screen devices



The likely question would then be: If this is so critical, why isn’t there any research?



Personally, I’m happy with the approach of things that affect people without disability having a greater impact on people who do. See for example the U-turn on the Material Design underline for input approach.



However, the greater the impact on how people design things, the greater the requirement for evidence.



I hope there is a sweet spot of applying certain design aspects in a way that is better for everyone, and necessary for people with cognitive impairments. However, I not sure we can even be sure about that yet?



> 4. Non-text contrast (1.4.11) … means that in WCAG 2.1 we have pretty much defined visual indicators



This is really not the case, which is clear due to your second point:



> this has lead to a situation where designers are actively encourages them not to provide them as they then must make sure they contrast.



If it had defined visual indicators, people wouldn’t be able to avoid them. We knew it was desirable to define that at the time, but as an SC primarily aimed at low-vision users, it was more feasible to take an approach of ‘if you provide it then it has contrast’. Even then, we had to make exceptions for things that were not issues in practice such as (not) requiring backgrounds on links to meet the contrast level.



If there were one SC which we do not want to repeat the approach of, it would be non-text contrast. There were so many misunderstandings and adjustments it caused a lot of frustration and wasted time (both for designers and us). And I say that as a proponent of the concept and someone who wrote a lot of the understanding doc.



One comment with chair hat on: If Visual indicators were to take the approach of a broad-SC text and lots of examples in the understanding document, we would need to be reviewing that understanding document now for inclusion in WCAG 2.2.



Cheers,



-Alastair