Re: Mode of operation text

Hi Alastair, All,

I'm starting to better understand this - or at least I think I can better
explain my concern. SC 2.4.7 states:

Any keyboard operable user interface has a mode of operation where the
keyboard focus indicator is visible.

This is presented as a *complete sentence*, which in effect could be
re-written as:



*When a keyboard operable interface is provided it MUST ensure a keyboard
focus indication is present.*


However, in the Draft language for Visible Enhanced (Option 3)
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F83m-HXRkXz1QCF6_QNtQGzIULugMiFSLgtqDRgKA-s/edit?pli=1#>,
that phrase is now being used as a modifier (effectively an IF statement):

(IF) "Any keyboard operable user interface has a mode of operation where
the keyboard focus indicator meets (THAN) all of the following (MUST be met)
:


Putting aside for the moment the odd grammar of that statement as currently
written in the draft, my question then becomes, when and where will content
that does not meet SC 2.4.7 none-the-less still be governed by this
requirement - in other words, before you can meet this new SC, *you must
first meet SC 2.4.7*, *OR* are there instances where this is not applicable?

As for the "*minor addition*" to the Understanding Document
(non-normative), do we have a record of a vote to approve that "minor"
update? (I've missed some calls for sure, but I don't recall ever hearing
about that change). *It strikes me that this is a 'definition' which should
be moved to the normative part of our specification, and not hidden away in
the Understanding document.*

More importantly however, do we have evidence of ANY "...platforms which
may not always show a focus indicator."?

I know that native mobile apps can be built without focus indication, but
they can also be built WITH that - it's a design and development issue, and
not one related to mobile platforms. I'll assert that even in future
platforms (XR?) some form of visible focus indicator will always be
required for some if not all (or most) users.

Based upon that, I'm now leaning towards the second option, but with an
additional modification that the low-vision folks will need to weigh-in on:

Any *All* keyboard operable user interface*(s)* has *have* a mode of
operation where the keyboard focus indicator:

   -

   Is at least the size of a 1 CSS pixel solid border around the control, *or
   a 2 CSS pixel border along at least one edge of the control,* and
   -

   has a contrast ratio with the adjacent colors is at least 3:1, and
   -

   has a change of contrast compared to the unfocused control of at least
   3:1.


The addition of the 2 px alternative is a suggestion to address the one
"con" noted with this wording option.

JF


On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 3:10 AM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi John,
>
>
>
> You asked in the call about the wording taken from 2.4.7:
>
> “Any keyboard operable user interface has a mode of operation where the
> keyboard focus indicator"
>
>
>
> As part of this update it includes this minor addition to the
> understanding doc [1] with:
>
> > Where the success criterion says “mode of operation”, this is to account
> for platforms which may not always show a focus indicator. In most cases
> there is only one mode of operation so this success criteria applies.
>
>
>
> I assume that’s a reference to kiosks, or perhaps allowing for
> customisation? I’m not sure, was from before my time in the group!
>
>
>
> Discussion that prompted this update here:
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/301
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> 1] https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/focus-visible.html
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> www.nomensa.com
> tel: +44 (0)117 929 7333 / 07970 879 653
> follow us: @we_are_nomensa or me: @alastc
> Nomensa Ltd. King William House, 13 Queen Square, Bristol BS1 4NT
>
>
>
> Company number: 4214477 | UK VAT registration: GB 771727411
>
>
>


-- 
*​John Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Strategist | W3C AC Representative
Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
deque.com
"I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter." -
Pascal