- From: Roger Pachebat <rpachebat@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 09:08:29 -0500
- To: "'Pyatt, Elizabeth J'" <ejp10@psu.edu>, "'Harry Loots'" <harry.loots@ieee.org>
- Cc: "'w3c-wai-ig'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
A sentence in https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#contrast-minimum, specifically "Text or images of text that are part of an inactive user interface component", suggests to me that disabled components would not be subject to minimum contrast levels currently. How do others read that? Roger -----Original Message----- From: Pyatt, Elizabeth J <ejp10@psu.edu> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2018 8:54 AM To: Harry Loots <harry.loots@ieee.org> Cc: w3c-wai-ig <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> Subject: Re: Disabled form fields I’m not a policy expert, but I would make that recommendation also. There are many situations where a person may need information in a non-editable field (e.g. to confirm an auto-populated field or see content already entered into a form on a previous page). Elizabeth > On Dec 14, 2018, at 5:19 AM, Harry Loots <harry.loots@ieee.org> wrote: > > Dear all > > My understanding of SC 1.4.3 (Contrast) is that disabled form fields should also be subject to minimum contrast levels, since these fields may provide pertinent information to the user. > > Example from Google Material Design assets: > <image.png> > > What is the view of this group? > > Kindest regards > Harry > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Elizabeth J. Pyatt, Ph.D. Accessibility IT Consultant Teaching and Learning with Technology Penn State University ejp10@psu.edu, (814) 865-0805 or (814) 865-2030 (Main Office) The 300 Building, 112 304 West College Avenue State College, PA 16801 accessibility.psu.edu --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com
Received on Friday, 14 December 2018 14:42:32 UTC