- From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 15:18:52 +0000
- To: 'w3c-wai-ig' <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Roger Pachebat wrote: > 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. Correct they are covered by the exceptions, so not required to have contrast by the guidelines. BUT, that does mean it is a good practice, or desirable thing to do. In this instance it means that it was not possible to suggest a good way of achieving the same thing in all circumstances, therefore it could not be made a requirement. Terry wrote: > By the letter of the law, it appears to apply only to active fields, however, I require the developers to use a color palette that accommodates high enough contrast for disabled fields as well. Not always something you can force, but I have the luxury of sitting in on the branding team as well as testing for compliance. Exactly, if you can provide good contrast whilst maintaining a clear indicator of a component being inactive, that would be a better solution. If the designers are involved early on and know about this, that's much easier than changing things later. Terry also wrote: > Similarly, there are non-text items that require contrast in my world. Home grown Icons that identify actions or categories of data etc.... Have you seen the new non-text contrast criteria? https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#non-text-contrast -Alastair
Received on Friday, 14 December 2018 15:19:17 UTC