RE: Visual indicators

I agree, if an input doesn’t have a border, line, etc. and is required then it’s using something else like spacing or font styling to communicate it’s an edit.   The rub is that size can be used and that could be tricky to measure.   What would the size be compared to? Other input field, static text, etc.?


From: James A. <>
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2020 9:25 AM
To: Alastair Campbell <>; WCAG <>; David MacDonald <>
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.

+1 to going back to this earlier draft.

Re “ Required input fields (which are already covered by 1.4.11)” - this success criteria does not cover input fields where there is no indicator. For example if there is a label and value but no indicator that selecting  the field will make it an editable field e.g. selecting 20 for

Value: 20

It would be useful to cover this use case.

Best wishes

Abi James

On 29 Apr 2020, at 10:29, Alastair Campbell <<>> wrote:

Hi David,

I think we can start with a simpler version:
“For each control needed to progress a process, spacing and/or font styling are not used as the only visual means of conveying that the control is actionable.”

I think the argument for the legal commitment aspect was that the design was quite prescriptive, I.e. you have to use A, B & C.

Now that it is “don’t use X & Y”, that argument drops away.

For the exceptions:

> Actionable controls with an underline
Does font styling include underline? Even if it does, can we start without that exception, as things like ‘next’ shouldn’t just rely on underline. We can fall back to including this.

> Inactive user interface components
How could an inactive control be necessary to progress? It would have to be active.

> Controls that initiate a process
Can we rely on the meaning of ‘progress’ for this, like with the other SC?

> Required input fields (which are already covered by 1.4.11)
The other SC isn’t using process to cover required input fields either, so I think we’re best explaining that in the understanding doc.


From: David MacDonald <<>>
Sent: 28 April 2020 20:08
To: WCAG <<>>
Subject: Visual indicators

HI All

At the end of the meeting today, I described the history of the visual indicators SC and how we are on the edge of the consensus couple of weeks ago and then splintered out into numerous iterations.  It sounds like there was just a misunderstanding about this previous version and COGA appears to be in agreement with the language.

I've made a clean copy and have updated the understanding document. Of course there would be discussion about exemptions in the definition of process but I think were pretty close to something that is tight enough that authors would know when it applies and when it doesn't apply.

Lisa will be getting some additional examples this week to build out the understanding a little bit further. I think the text in this version is something that we may be able to rally around and get consensus. Understanding that we would want to go further once personalization is mature which would be in the next major version of WCAG.

I've made a copy of the previous versions and we have a full archive of all comments and discussions and versions leading up to this point for anybody who wants them.<>

David MacDonald

CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Mobile:  613.806.9005



  Adapting the web to all users
            Including those with disabilities

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy<>

Received on Wednesday, 29 April 2020 13:51:44 UTC