W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2022

RE: Focus appearance

From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 17:35:08 +0000
To: WCAG list <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BL1PR03MB61205D1591B8E13BFCA146F0F1359@BL1PR03MB6120.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
In SC 1.4.11 we used “Visual information required to identify” so – something similar could be used to indicate the area of the focus indicator – but personally I feel like this is actually making it much more complicated than using a bounding box or target area.  “Area of the information required to identify the user interface…”

In regards to complexity – SC 1.4.11 in my opinion is far more complex to sort out.


From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 11:37 AM
To: David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com>
Cc: WCAG list <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Focus appearance

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

> I think in general it is easier to understand although it still wins the prize for the most complex SC in the history of WCAG 1.0 - 2.x

As SC text I’d agree, although in implementation & testing we have many that take more time to deal with (e.g. 1.3.1, 4.1.2 etc.)

We also need to emphasise the easy solutions, which are also easy to test. Skating close to the minimum does make it harder to work out.

> do we mean "...where content would go..."?

Yes, I am definitely looking for more elegant wording for that note.

So the full note would then be:
“The content of the component can be text or images. For blank inputs the bounding box contains the area where content would go.”

It doesn’t feel quite right as the content could be text (for a text input), or checkboxes, radio buttons etc.

Received on Wednesday, 16 February 2022 17:35:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:43 UTC