- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 16:14:54 +0000
- To: caroline <woodward.caroline@gmail.com>
- Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On 12/11/2020 16:08, caroline wrote: > Thanks so much (and apologies for the delayed response). I wonder if > that detail would be worth adding to the wcag as gmail is not the only > place I've seen this. I suspect the main reason for many sites having low contrast is simply that they ignore WCAG. Don't think it's due to a misunderstanding of what "inactive user interface components" are... > There are times where terms/meaning differ between design and > development. There was a thought that perhaps someone is translating a > tab in the navigation to be disabled until a user tabs to it. Whatever > the reason I feel a distinction for link states may be needed. It could > just be me though. There's a pull request (for WCAG 2.2) to add a definition of "inactive" https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/1154 which should help in cases like this to clarify what is meant. Hoping it will get merged soon (and ideally, I'd love to have that glossary definition backported into WCAG 2.1 and 2.0 ...) P -- Patrick H. Lauke https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
Received on Thursday, 12 November 2020 16:15:09 UTC