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

RE: Focus not "obscured" to "overlapped"

From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 13:34:48 +0000
To: "WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BL1PR03MB61205915C8D361B2C4DADA8AF1739@BL1PR03MB6120.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
I would think that overlapping is more strict because things can overlap but not be obscured or made opaque and in that case if they overlap and have no visual impact then it's not an issue but yet it could fail.  It seems if there is an opacity issue then it would be caught already by SC 1.4.11 or 2.4.11.    I'm just hesitant to make such a potentially impactful change at the last minute without considering the consequences but I would not object if the group believes this is better and safer.


From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 7:59 AM
To: WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Focus not "obscured" to "overlapped"

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.

Hi everyone,

The last (very last, I hope) potentially normative issue on WCAG 2.2 is:

Summary: Is it leaving a hole that the component/indicator could be behind a semi-opaque layer?

If so, should we change the SC to talk about overlapping instead of obscuring?

E.g. When a <a>user interface component</a> receives keyboard focus, the component is not entirely overlapped by author-created content.

That means opacity doesn't figure into the scope, if it overlaps it overlaps.

That change is implemented in:

Does that work? Any objections?

Received on Wednesday, 24 August 2022 13:35:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 24 August 2022 13:35:07 UTC