Re: Pre-CFC to go to CR (Please respond March 29th or early March 30th)

Hi Wilco,

Just a mistake on removing the wrong ‘and’, corrected now.

Thanks,

-Alastair

From: Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
Date: Thursday, 30 March 2023 at 17:42
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: Niemann, Gundula <gundula.niemann@sap.com>, WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Pre-CFC to go to CR (Please respond March 29th or early March 30th)
Hey Alastair,
I'm not sure what you're proposing. The PR says this:

    <p>When the keyboard <a>focus indicator</a> is visible, an area of the focus indicator meets all the following:</p>
    <ul>
        <li>is at least as large as the area of a 1 <a>CSS pixel</a> thick <a>perimeter</a> of the unfocused component or sub-component</li>
        <li>has a contrast ratio of at least 3:1 between the same pixels in the focused and unfocused states, and</li>

Why does the second item have ", and" at the end of it? Did you mean to remove this, or is there a clause you didn't want to remove? I'm not sure what you're planning to put to a vote.

On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 6:00 PM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:
Hi Gundula,

Historically, that’s the type of SC that we put at AAA. For example:

  *   Visual appearance requires selectable colours and a max-width for text.
  *   Contrast (enhanced) has a stronger contrast requirement which prevents a design from using colour (contrast) to differentiate links (because you can’t get 3 way contrast), as well as many colour palates.
  *   Section headings requires, well, section headings.

Anyone aiming for AAA will have other, long standing SCs that ‘hinder creative ideas’ [1].

The way I’ve seen organisations using AAA criteria is on a more optional/aspirational basis, where they look at the requirement and see how they can support it in their context. If they decide to use a different indicator that doesn’t meet it (but they think is still good according to our guidance), they are free to do so.

At AAA, the simpler we can make the SC, the more likely people are to use it.

Kind regards,

-Alastair

1] I don’t really agree that it is a hindrance, but there is a challenge of extra complexity.


From: Niemann, Gundula <gundula.niemann@sap.com<mailto:gundula.niemann@sap.com>>
Date: Thursday, 30 March 2023 at 14:11
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>, WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: RE: Pre-CFC to go to CR (Please respond March 29th or early March 30th)
For focus appearance, I object to the stronger version as given in the PR,
as it is not open for variations in designs, makes it hard for complex interactive pages to find a distinguishable pattern, and it hinders creative ideas.

For target size, I agree.

Best regards,
Gundula
----------
Dr. Gundula Niemann
SAP PE UX Accessibility
SAP SE



From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>
Sent: Mittwoch, 29. März 2023 20:18
To: WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: Pre-CFC to go to CR (Please respond March 29th or early March 30th)

Hi everyone,

This is a ‘pre-CFC’, highlighting the changes that will be put up for approval very soon. Please let us know if you have revisions or objections before noon Eastern COB March 30th.

From the recent discussions on Target Size and Focus Appearance we have a plan, which is:

  *   Focus appearance moves to AAA, at risk.

     *   It is updated to a stronger, simpler version (see PR below).
     *   If that version is objected to during CR, we will fall-back to the previous wording (minus the 1st set of bullets).
     *   If both versions are objected to during CR, we will remove it.

  *   Target size is updated, at risk.

     *   The ‘circles’ method is used for the spacing exception.
     *   The mention of ‘lists’ in the inline exception is removed but is addressed in the understanding document.
     *   If the circles method is objected to during CR, we will fall-back to the previous wording.

The fall-backs are subject to discussion with W3C management, but if we can’t use this plan, we will come back with another.

The changes are in this PR:
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3123/files<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag%2Fpull%2F3123%2Ffiles&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7Cefe515ac44b541edab3108db313db034%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638157913248259202%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=M%2BiWdRaq3%2FD7aKmTI%2FzPNK9QGnxLaJ8QLjQmmrMkHF4%3D&reserved=0>

If this is approved, the understanding documents for both will need updating, but that is not part of this PR/change.

The responses to these proposals have been positive, so we are looking for objections / adjustments before we go to CFC.

Kind regards,

-Alastair

--

@alastc / www.nomensa.com<https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nomensa.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cacampbell%40nomensa.com%7Cefe515ac44b541edab3108db313db034%7Cebea4ad6fbbf43bd8449c56e26692c35%7C0%7C0%7C638157913248259202%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=3LzAqp3QtQwVbOLkRpbwwkzg%2F5cz3%2Fw2H1KrUDF1PZ8%3D&reserved=0>



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