WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Name, Role, Value and Labels or Instructions techniques...

for

From: Cliff Tyllick
Date: Apr 7, 2015 10:50AM

Birkir said (in part):
> color contrast requirements should definitely be an A vs. a AA violation

Cliff responds:
Actually, I don't see why the systematic assignment of colors used for text and other meaningful content isn't a Level A guideline. Without that, we cannot ensure that all people with color- or contrast-sensitive deficits in vision will be able to make the content perceivable.

No one palette works for everyone in every situation. No one threshold value affords usable levels of contrast to every user. But giving the user control—systematic and, therefore, predictable control—over the site's or application's palette does ensure that the content can be perceivable to everyone.

Cliff Tyllick



Sent from my iPhone
Although its spellcheck often saves me, all goofs in sent messages are its fault.

> On Apr 1, 2015, at 2:10 AM, Birkir R. Gunnarsson < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>
> It is a fact that WCAG definitely has a little bit of screen reader bias.
> Well, that is only part of the story. The other part is that browser
> vendors should have done a better job making keyboard only navigation
> accessible, such as options or displaying title attributes onFocus as
> well as onHover
> Users with dexterity impairments should be able to click on the target
> of aria-labelledby )which at that point is the programmatically
> associated label for a form control) to move focus into the associated
> input field or checks the associated radiobutton.
> browsers should enable users to configure the default color and
> appearance of placeholder text so that they can make placeholder color
> contrast sufficient when necessary,
> color contrast requirements should definitely be an A vs. a AA violation
> ..and so on.
> screen reader users have the luxury of applications that take full
> benfit of WCAG compliance. Sadly other groups of disabilities may not
> have that luxury because they do not rely solely on assistive
> technology to make webpages fully work for them.
> This is a process, and hopefully we can move it forward, both in terms
> of current browsers and other applications taking more advantage of
> accessible mark-up, as well as keeping future improvements to our
> standards in mind.
> I think WCAG compliance offers a lot more accessibl scenarios than we
> )the tech world= currently offer, which makes the future exciting.
> -B
>
>
>
> On 3/31/15, Ryan E. Benson < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>>> It's just different ways to get to the same outcome.
>>
>> except when the scope is expanded to people not using screen readers, such
>> as my need for needing larger targets at times.
>>
>> --
>> Ryan E. Benson
>>
>>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Léonie Watson < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
>>>
>>> " So with the new document, 4.1.2 and 3.3.2 success criterion, in a way,
>>> contradict each other. Part of me ask why list something that can be done.
>>> but really should not be done?"
>>>
>>> I don't think they do contradict each other do they? 4.2.2 requires that a
>>> thing has an accessible name, 3.2.2 requires that it has a visible label.
>>> You can meet both in one go using the <label> element, or you can meet
>>> them
>>> separately using the title attribute and a different visual label. It's
>>> just different ways to get to the same outcome.
>>>
>>>
>>> Léonie.
>>> --
>>> @LeonieWatson Tink.UK Carpe diem
>>>
>>>
>>> >>> >>> >>> >>>
>> >> >> >> >>
>
>
> --
> Work hard. Have fun. Make history.
> > > >