Re: Focus not "obscured" to "overlapped"

Hey folks,
There's pro's and con's to both versions I think. I don't much mind which
one we go with as long as we add either a definition, note, or something to
the understanding document. (ordered from highest to lowest preference).





On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 7:29 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi Melanie,
>
>
>
> Going back to where the requirement came from, we had a discussion about
> this scenario for 2.4.7. We decided the overlapping wasn’t covered by 2.4.7
> because there is a “mode” where it is visible: scroll down a bit or move
> the overlapping element.
>
>
>
> As 2.4.11 builds on 2.4.7, I don’t see how that would cover it. The focus
> indicator can meet 2.4.11 and be overlapped by something else. That’s why
> the focus-obscured SC exists.
>
>
>
> Otherwise you’d sometimes to do those size calculations but also take off
> the overlap, which I don’t think anyone would want!
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Melanie Philipp <melanie.philipp@deque.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 18:24
> *To: *Sheri Byrne Haber <sbyrnehaber@vmware.com>
> *Cc: *Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, Jonathan Avila <
> jon.avila@levelaccess.com>, WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <
> w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Re: Focus not "obscured" to "overlapped"
>
> Alastair you said:
> 1. “Obscured” doesn’t define how much opacity would be ok, so
> theoretically it could be almost solid (but not quite). I don’t think it
> would be caught by 1.4.11 or 2.4.11 because you can just scroll those into
> view. Focus-not-obscured is about the visibility as you tab to it.
>
> But, if you tabbed to something that was fully overlapped by something
> that is "almost solid (but not quite)" wouldn't that fail  2.4.11 because
> it starts off with "When the keyboard focus indicator is visible...." The
> keyboard focus would be "visible" when you tabbed to the element but would
> fail the contrast requirements of 2.4.11.
>
>
>
> *Melanie Philipp, CPACC, WAS | *Director, Services Methodology
> | 540-848-5220
>
> Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good
> www.deque.com
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 1:03 PM Sheri Byrne Haber <sbyrnehaber@vmware.com>
> wrote:
>
> The reason why I am strongly leaning towards number 2 is I don’t think
> number 1 can be tested in an automated manner.  That shouldn’t be the only
> reason for choosing number 2, but it should be a factor.
>
>
>
> Sheri
>
>
>
> *From:* Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 24, 2022 10:00 AM
> *To:* Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>; WCAG list (
> w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Focus not "obscured" to "overlapped"
>
>
>
> *⚠ External Email*
>
> Hi Jon,
>
>
>
> I think there’s a choice here between:
>
>
>
>    1. “Obscured” doesn’t define how much opacity would be ok, so
>    theoretically it could be almost solid (but not quite). I don’t think it
>    would be caught by 1.4.11 or 2.4.11 because you can just scroll those into
>    view. Focus-not-obscured is about the visibility as you tab to it.
>    2. “Overlapping” also doesn’t say how much opacity would be ok, but
>    I’d read that as opacity not mattering so you look at the overlap. At AA
>    there can be some overlap, at AAA no overlap. Very transparent things (that
>    are visibly ‘ok’) would fail.
>
>
>
> So, we can close a hole and also catch a few (theoretical) things which
> actually aren’t too bad. Or we can leave the hole and a let a few things
> through that are not very visible.
>
>
>
> If people are not keen then we’ll keep with the status quo.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, 24 August 2022 at 14:35
> *To: *WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject: *RE: Focus not "obscured" to "overlapped"
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *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:
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2583
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag%2Fissues%2F2583&data=05%7C01%7Csbyrnehaber%40vmware.com%7C484b9bd6b8e94da49e3d08da85f238b2%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637969572633722086%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=w0zTbolMQYStK630FMDWGUQT9K2%2F7uEv2jRMcoEt2KA%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> 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:
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2634/files
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag%2Fpull%2F2634%2Ffiles&data=05%7C01%7Csbyrnehaber%40vmware.com%7C484b9bd6b8e94da49e3d08da85f238b2%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C0%7C637969572633722086%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ONAVFICyYelHG3GSeVk9lJ5%2FT3ovTVlyVw0nCdosvHA%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>
> Does that work? Any objections?
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *⚠ External Email:* This email originated from outside of the
> organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize
> the sender.
>
>

-- 
*Wilco Fiers*
Axe-core & Axe-linter product owner - WCAG 3 Project Manager - Facilitator
ACT Task Force