Re: Focus-appearance flipped version

Hey Alastair,
I suggested an update, which I would address my concerns with the wording.
It's more precise, but in doing so (as always) it got more complicated.
Hope it helps though.

On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 6:33 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi Wilco (and list),
>
>
>
> In the survey that we didn’t have time for today on focus-appearance, you
> mentioned that you didn’t think we’d resolved this previous comment:
>
> “I think the rewording still does not make it clear that not every single
> pixel in the focus indicator needs to have a contrast ratio of 3:1. I think
> this SC needs to be flipped around. The steps to go through to figure out
> conformance here is that you first count how many pixels in the focus state
> have a contrast ratio of 3:1 the unfocused state, and only than check do
> you check whether or not there is enough of them.”
>
>
>
> We had discussed this previously:
>
> https://www.w3.org/2021/02/16-ag-minutes.html#item12
>
>
>
> As I mentioned then, I’d looked at how that would work, but it is a
> chicken and egg situation, and it could undermines the ‘adjacent’ contrast
> bullet. I took another stab today, and still couldn’t see how to make that
> work.
>
>
>
> However, I did try adjusting it so the minimum focus indicator definition
> becomes the lynchpin of that (something DavidM suggested I think):
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KAo-6ID3NlVwdGl7uyjnlM_c28kBoizkjIdC8GXLwn4/edit#heading=h.sjv1tte0jm78
>
>
>
> I’m not entirely happy with that, the unobscured bit now dangles, and the
> min-focus indicator definition may need work.
>
>
>
> I wanted to try and address the comment, but I’m not convinced  it helps.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> @alastc / www.nomensa.com
>


-- 
*Wilco Fiers*
Axe-core product owner - Facilitator ACT Task Force - Co-chair ACT-Rules