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

Re: Focus appearance

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 09:52:56 +0000
To: Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DFCD0044-B755-4DB3-9A80-05F77C7CFEE5@nomensa.com>
Hi Wilco,

A few replies on that:


> I'm not opposed to the change, but I did think it worth noting it creates a fairly significant loop hole in adjacent contrast.

Did you notice the overall PR doesn’t change the adjacent bullet? I took those comments from the survey on board.



> For example on a card with an image, is that image content?

This stems from what is included in a UIC. When you (and others) put on the survey that UIC was the best approach, what was the answer to the card question?


> I've asked and will continue to ask for evidence that a fading focus indicator is a substantial accessibility problem.


The fading focus indicator is fairly new and not very well known yet. Apart from the people who created it (possibly), I doubt anyone else has had a chance to do research on it.

What we do know is:

  *   (Without the accessibility option) A fading focus indicator means it’s easy to lose where you were. The 2.4.7 understanding doc has language to the effect it must be persistent for that reason, extending that to the visibility of the indicator is logical.


  *   (Using the accessibility option) A fading focus indicator (on top of poor authored indicators) isn’t effective for some people, partly due to the fade, partly due to overlapping other content.

That isn’t a criticism of the accessibility option, nothing works for everyone and it is a good thing to have done for the people whom it does benefit. It also leads onto the next point:

> I think it's a fair assumption that browsers will never be able to solve this with a permanent focus indicator… to avoid permanently obscuring other content.


A browser-based, forced indicator is a blunt instrument, there are quite a few scenarios where the author has an advantage. For example, in areas where an expansive indicator overlaps other content, it is easy to use a smaller, high contrast indicator. Or an internal one.
I often run CSS to create a forced indicator, and it can get obscured by overlapping content as well.

To me that’s a good argument for the SC, regardless of the potential accessibility options. My read of the general group opinion was that (like text contrast) the focus indicator was something that should have a reasonable baseline by default.

However, I think Melanie had wanted to keep the conversation to the default indicator. Are you arguing that the authored or browser default indicators should be able to fade out?

I had thought that the reason the accessibility option faded was due to the overlap issues rather than because it was a better approach overall?

Kind regards,

-Alastair

Received on Thursday, 17 February 2022 09:53:13 UTC

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