RE: Amendment to visual indicators

Hi David, I like this.  Is text decoration like underline and bolding included in this as well – just want to make understand if that is included in font type?


From: David MacDonald <>
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2020 11:08 AM
To: Alastair Campbell <>; Patrick H. Lauke <>; Detlev Fischer <>; lisa.seeman <>; Abi James ( <>; Rachael Bradley Montgomery <>; Chuck Adams <>; WCAG <>
Subject: Amendment to 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.

Hi All

Patrick and Detlev have raised concerns about thendefinition of visual indicators that we should not try to be overly prescriptive on how they look. COGA is mostly concerned that visual indicators to progress not rely only on font type/size or spacing to indicator a control is necessary to progress through a process. SO I've turned around the SC to mat the approach used in the "Color alone<>" SC.

It's the same requirements in the SC but now we wouldn't need to use or define Visual indicators. It would need a new short name (i.e. "Process indicators")


Spacing, font type, and/or font size are not used as the only visual means of conveying that controls are actionable if they are necessary to do the following:

  *   initiate a
  *   process<>
  *   progress
  *   through a process
  *   complete
  *   a process
  *   return
  *   to a previous part of a process

Exception: the control is part of a group of controls that has a visual indicator for the group


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 Monday, 30 March 2020 15:17:19 UTC