RE: Focus-appearance flipped version

Hi Wilco,

I’ve replied in the document, but for the list:


  1.  You mentioned that the “no thinner than 2px” doesn’t belong in the area sub-bullet.

From a visual requirement point of view we need it, and it is related to that calculation. If people use that (potentially much smaller) calculation, we want a minimum thickness requirement on it to make up for the smaller size.

If you have a look at the current survey, we are considering making that thicker!



  1.  The suggested “indicator contrast” bullet includes “continuous area”.

Would that be a problem for split indicators? Where you have two areas, one on each side (like some Deque buttons).


  1.  You suggested we use ‘target’ to define the size of the component.

I think we’d run into objections from that, we had an issue come up where an organisation expands the hit area well outside of the visible boundary of a control, massively increasing the size requirement. That’s why we have the current notes which says “If the component has a visible boundary smaller than the hit area, the area measurement is taken from the visible boundary.”


  1.  You replaced “shortest side” with “shortest diameter”.

I appreciate wanting to apply it to more shapes that the usual rectangles, but how would you apply a diameter to a rectangle?  Would it be better to say that if a shape doesn’t have sides you can’t use that calculation, you need to use the perimeter.

Cheers,

-Alastair


From: Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
Sent: 24 March 2021 12:28
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: 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<mailto: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<http://www.nomensa.com>


--
Wilco Fiers
Axe-core product owner - Facilitator ACT Task Force - Co-chair ACT-Rules
[cid:BCBD7D4B-677E-4B95-AE3F-60005DBD9EE4]