- From: Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
- Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 23:17:07 +0200
- To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, "WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
How about: Focus Visible Focus Visible (Enhanced) Focus Visible ( Strong Focus) Sent from phone > Am 02.07.2020 um 20:08 schrieb Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>: > > Hi Alastair, > > Changing a 2.0 SC name may be controversial, I'm not sure. > > I like your backup suggestion and rationale. > > Thanks! > > Kind regards, > Laura > >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020, 12:20 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Laura, >> >> > I agree with John that the real minimum is Level A. >> >> Fair enough, good to have a fresh view! >> >> I'm unsure about "median" for the new AA criterion, but I also can't think of anything along those lines that feels right. >> >> Modifying the name of 2.4.7 is something I had veered away from, but it might be the neatest thing, e.g: >> >> * Level A: 2.4.7 Focus visible (Minimum) >> * Level AA: 2.4.11 Focus visible >> * Level AAA: 2.4.xx Focus visible (Enhanced) >> >> Floating that, but wondering if there will be howls of complaint about changing a 2.0 SC name...? (Or Michael might say it will break the spec?!) >> >> My backup suggestion is: >> * Level A: 2.4.7 Focus visible >> * Level AA: 2.4.11 Focus visible (Contrast) >> * Level AAA: 2.4.xx Focus visible (Enhanced) >> >> The reasoning being that the new criteria brings in a contrast requirement, and the AAA one enhances that. >> >> Cheers, >> >> -Alastair >
Received on Thursday, 2 July 2020 21:17:24 UTC