Re: Focus-appearance & decorative effects

+1

On Fri, Aug 26, 2022 at 12:19 AM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> I get the impression people are reasonably happy with either approach, so
> unless someone objects, I’ll go with the simpler version:
>
> “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.”
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> *Date: *Thursday, 25 August 2022 at 14:57
> *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>
> 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
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>


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