- From: Niemann, Gundula <gundula.niemann@sap.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2023 10:43:53 +0000
- To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, "WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <DB9PR02MB737248BAE24D20C55A13FC47F78B9@DB9PR02MB7372.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Hello Alastair, > In the previous discussion it was agreed that every focus indicator which passes the old version should also pass the version we finally come up with. I don't remember that, but presumably it was in the context of the AA version? We've only started talking about a AAA version recently. I don't there is any requirement for backwards compatibility for something that hasn't been published yet. It was said during the last AGWG Meeting (March 21). Indeed we agreed to move the existing requirement to AAA. Nevertheless that does not mean to make it stricter and prescriptive. > In the current version, these pass by the "4 times the shortest side" wording plus "at least 2 px wide". I'm not sure of your point, are you saying we should keep the other size metric? Yes, indeed. The size metric "or is at least as large as a 4 CSS pixel thick line along the shortest side of the minimum bounding box<https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/focus-appearance#dfn-minimum-bounding-box> of the unfocused component or sub-component" allows creative solutions and patterns which are unique on the page, therefore I think we should keep it. Best regards, Gundula From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> Sent: Freitag, 24. März 2023 17:37 To: Niemann, Gundula <gundula.niemann@sap.com>; WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Subject: Re: Focus appearance updates Hi Gundula, > In the previous discussion it was agreed that every focus indicator which passes the old version should also pass the version we finally come up with. I don't remember that, but presumably it was in the context of the AA version? We've only started talking about a AAA version recently. I don't there is any requirement for backwards compatibility for something that hasn't been published yet. > In the current version, these pass by the "4 times the shortest side" wording plus "at least 2 px wide". I'm not sure of your point, are you saying we should keep the other size metric? Kind regards, -Alastair -- @alastc / www.nomensa.com<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nomensa.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cgundula.niemann%40sap.com%7Cf57129d03ed44fb8a96d08db2c86035f%7C42f7676cf455423c82f6dc2d99791af7%7C0%7C0%7C638152726312731980%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BK%2BXT%2FFRQbNOFb5OiZYp5rFxAUUAO6TPQNqiaCo9x8Y%3D&reserved=0>
Received on Monday, 27 March 2023 10:44:12 UTC