Re: [EXT] Visible controls - Design canvas exception

Thanks, Alastair.

Here’s a timely and helpful post from TPGi’s Ian Lloyd on 1.4.1 Use of Color: https://www.tpgi.com/well-color-us-surprised-this-sc-can-be-a-tricky-customer/ <https://www.tpgi.com/well-color-us-surprised-this-sc-can-be-a-tricky-customer/>

Test 6 is one example of what I thought we were trying to address with the visible controls SC, where hover/focus is the only means to visually identify links. Interestingly it passes 1.4.1 Use of Color since color isn’t used to visually identify links. As Ian notes, “there is not really another SC that this can be pinned on, so unfortunately we are left with Best Practice for this.”

I feel like we’re talking a cross purposes and may be trying to solve different problems. In previous emails I suggested we could clarify the intent of the SC with COGA and also try redoing the survey with the question, “Are actionable elements recognizable as actionable? Yes/No”. Otherwise I think we can stop cluttering inboxes!

Best,
Sarah

> On Apr 12, 2022, at 11:08 PM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
> 
> > WCAG doesn’t define the “other visual means” in Use of Color. There are examples and techniques, but it’s up to the designer to determine how to provide the information conveyed with color through another visual means.
> 
> When you rely on color, certain distinct information is being conveyed, e.g. a red or green circle next to an item to indicate status. From a testing point of view you can then look for how else you would know that information. 
> 
> However, something having additional controls on-hover isn’t distinct information, it is a sort of a status, and one that can get mixed in with other statuses. E.g. is this a control, is it selected, etc. 
> 
> Having looked through quite a few examples, I don’t think it as clear as Use of Color (which itself can cause disagreements!).
> 
> -Alastair 
> 
>