Re: Focus-appearance & decorative effects

+ 1 to added “decorative effects” concept and grouping.

(This would easily connect with the “decorative” image concept in other SC and help readers understand the point quickly. )

Best,
Jemma


From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Thursday, August 25, 2022 8:58 AM
To: Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
Cc: WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Focus-appearance & decorative effects
Hi Wilco,

Thanks for that, it works for me.

When I tried to incorporate the definition it turned out like this:
What is perceived as the user interface component or sub-component (to determine enclosure or size) depends on its visual presentation. The visual presentation includes the component's visible content, border, and component-specific background. It does not include decorative effects emanating from the visible component such as shadows or glow effects. Such effects are considered decorative when, if removed, they would not change the ability to identify the component.

If people are happy not to have the principle included (i.e. if removed don’t affect identifiability), then I’m happy with the simpler version.

Cheers,

-Alastair


From: Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>



Would something like this work:
What is perceived as the user interface component or sub-component (to determine enclosure or size) depends on its visual presentation. The visual presentation includes the component's visible content, border, and component-specific background. It does not include shadow and glow effects outside the border, background, and content of the component.

The key difference is that we explicitly only exempt shadows and glows outside the border-box. I can't think of anything else we'd want exempt, so perhaps we can be more constrained?



On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 8:53 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:
Hi folks,

During the meeting we discussed adjusting the perception interpretation paragraph to ignore ‘extraneous’ effects like shadow/glow.

I’ve done a bit of checking in WCAG 2.1 for current definition, and tried to implement Gregg’s suggestion here:
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/2632/files<https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag%2Fpull%2F2632%2Ffiles&data=05%7C01%7Cjku%40uic.edu%7C4b322adbca14498d56fa08da86a1c388%7Ce202cd477a564baa99e3e3b71a7c77dd%7C0%7C0%7C637970327208003637%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C2000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=exA37tNZdgoeHzfFzZKWdW8c%2BvKDwmKs4kQNc14fHI4%3D&reserved=0>

That updates the note to:
“What is perceived as the user interface component or sub-component (to determine enclosure or size) depends on its visual presentation. The visual presentation includes the component's visible content, border, and component-specific background. It does not include <a>decorative effects</a> emanating from the visible component such as shadows or glow effects.”

The definition is then:
<p>effects added to an element that are outside of the element and if removed do not change the ability to identify the element</p>
<p class="example">Shadows or glow effects around a user interface control.</p>

The question that occurs to me is: Why isn’t a background/border a decorative effect?
I think the answer is: The border helps you identify the UIC, whereas a shadow doesn’t. Maybe?

I’d appreciate any comments/suggestions as soon as possible please, we’re almost at the (this) finish line…

-Alastair


--
Wilco Fiers
Axe-core & Axe-linter product owner - WCAG 3 Project Manager - Facilitator ACT Task Force
[cid:BCBD7D4B-677E-4B95-AE3F-60005DBD9EE4]