Focus appearance

Hi everyone,

I’d like to make a bit of progress between meetings on this, based on the survey I think we can come to a solid proposal for questions 2-4 on the last survey.

If you have a comment which I’ve tried to address your name should be below. I’d appreciate it if you could scan for that and review the rounded-up PR at the bottom.

Q1. User agents

Although that discussion is not resolved, it seemed reasonable to at least add an exception for when the user-agent does not permit styling of the component.

Q2. Suggested update for understandability

This was Andrew’s overhaul for understandability in this PR:

Most people agreed, except Wilco and I thought the “Adjacent contrast” bullet had changed the scope slightly and would be better as it was previously (just updating the term for the contrasting area).

Q 3. Update to 'component' language take 2

The conversation on this has moved on a lot in this thread, with contributions from MichaelG, PatrickL and others (not on this email list):

The new proposal is to keep the scope to User Interface Components, but set the minimum size as a bounding box around the content of the control, i.e. the text or icon. See

for that specific update.

That should help with the survey comments from Gundula, Wilco, MichaelG & Bruce. However, the method of taking that size is new and might take a little thought to analyse. Also, the new note could do with some refinement.

Q4. Time limited focus indicators

The scoping we had done to allow for focused items to be partially obscured had opened up a loophole for fading indicators. There is a PR to move that aspect to only apply to the ‘obscured’ clause.

LawranceL: Patrick’s update was added.

Bruce: We can’t move that into a bullet as the scope is different (the focus indicator vs the item in focus). I tried to apply that here:

However, IMHO that shifted the focus too much and made the intro very long, I haven’t included that in the overall PR (yet, maybe someone can think of a better way).

Overall PR

I’ve tried to wrap all of the above into one new version:

If rawgit is working (I get an error at the moment) that should appear like here:
NB: It doesn’t show the links to definitions there, but none are new definitions. Also, the understanding document will need an overhaul if the SC proposal is agreed.

Kind regards,



@alastc /<>

Received on Wednesday, 16 February 2022 11:00:00 UTC