E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 4 (In chronological order)

From: Peter Quale
Date: Tue, Sep 04 2018 2:33PM
Subject: Reconciling WCAG 2.4.7 & 1.4.11
No previous message | Next message →

Hello,

I'm hoping to get some opinions on focus indicators and contrast.

Historically, we've always recommended following the 2.4.7 guideline of
maintaining a visible focus indicator with "visible" as being a subjective
measurement. We'll often require sites to add a custom focus indicator if
the default focus indicator provided by any popular browser fails to remain
visible. For example a light-blue back ground with Chrome's light blue
focus indicator is not visible.

Now, with guideline 1.4.11 requiring a 3:1 contrast for focus indicators,
we finally don't have to fight anyone on the question of "how visible is
visible" since the guideline states" the visual focus indicator for a
component must have sufficient (3:1) contrast against the adjacent
background when the component is focused". But the guideline goes on to say
"except where the appearance of the component is determined by the user
agent and not modified by the author." I read this to say the guideline
only applies to sites that add any focus styles. If the site just doesn't
do anything to the outline or the focus, they can avoid 1.4.11 altogether.

Anyway, I'd rather not tell anyone "just don't touch your focus
indicators", but if there is a loophole, I need to find a reasonable
message to share with the designers before they start setting up committee
meetings to discuss the new colors needed to meet a 3:1 contrast. The two
guidelines seem to contradict on some level, but perhaps I'm missing some
logic here.

Thanks all!

-Peter

--
*Peter Quale*
Google Voice: (707) 992-5696

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Tue, Sep 04 2018 2:45PM
Subject: Re: Reconciling WCAG 2.4.7 & 1.4.11
← Previous message | Next message →

On 04/09/2018 21:33, Peter Quale wrote:
[...]
> Now, with guideline 1.4.11 requiring a 3:1 contrast for focus indicators,
> we finally don't have to fight anyone on the question of "how visible is
> visible" since the guideline states" the visual focus indicator for a
> component must have sufficient (3:1) contrast against the adjacent
> background when the component is focused". But the guideline goes on to say
> "except where the appearance of the component is determined by the user
> agent and not modified by the author." I read this to say the guideline
> only applies to sites that add any focus styles. If the site just doesn't
> do anything to the outline or the focus, they can avoid 1.4.11 altogether.

From memory/paraphrasing, I believe the intention here was to make sure
that a site wouldn't be failed for things outside of its control. For
instance, if your site brings up a native alert() or similar - which is
completely outside of author control in terms of styling - then you're
exempted if the browser for some reason does a crappy job with the focus
indication.

Arguably, it's the browsers' responsibility to ensure their default (not
styled by authors) focus indication is sufficiently visible - but you're
right, this doesn't help the actual end users who struggle with certain
browsers' defaults.

This is indeed a loophole at present. I'd make it clear to clients that
they may be following the letter, but not the spirit, of the SC...for
what it's worth.

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

From: John Foliot
Date: Tue, Sep 04 2018 3:28PM
Subject: Re: Reconciling WCAG 2.4.7 & 1.4.11
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Peter,

*But the guideline goes on to say "except where the appearance of the
component is determined by the user agent and not modified by the author."
I read this to say the guideline only applies to sites that add any focus
styles. If the site just doesn't do anything to the outline or the focus,
they can avoid 1.4.11 altogether.*


Along with Patrick's comment, I'll also add that this is under the
assumption that the content author has not modified the background either.
If they do, then SC 2.4.7 still applies (albeit still without a defined
contrast ratio in that SC - but we can *infer* it to be 3:1 based upon SC
1.4.11). Additionally, the exception language singles out un-styled native
components, but excludes "state" (i.e. focused versus non-focused)

So, for example, in Chrome, the native focus indication today is a shade of
blue (on a white background) which still fails the required 3:1 contrast
ratio (native Chrome Focus Outline:#9BBFFD, Background:#FFFFFF = The
contrast ratio is: 1.9:1), but according to the wording of SC 1.4.11, it
passes that SC when used on the native background (white), because the
component, background, and focus state are all "not modified". However,
some folks are combining component and state as a singular item (I disagree
with that perspective, as both components and states can be styled
independently), and under that interpretation, yes, lots of things may
potentially fail the end user.

I knocked together the following which further explains (with examples) the
concern: http://john.foliot.ca/demos/focuscolor.html

Based upon my past experiences, the majority of developers who are striving
to meet SC 2.4.7 today already know that different browsers have different
native focus indication, and with a "same in every browser" design
mentality, are already declaring the focus indication explicitly in their
CSS, in which case the 3:1 ratio specified in SC 1.4.11 would then come
into play.

I do agree that it is an odd and circuitous route, and still leaves
something of a gap, but this is how I would explain it to the developers
going forward.

JF

On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 3:45 PM, Patrick H. Lauke < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
wrote:

> On 04/09/2018 21:33, Peter Quale wrote:
> [...]
>
>> Now, with guideline 1.4.11 requiring a 3:1 contrast for focus indicators,
>> we finally don't have to fight anyone on the question of "how visible is
>> visible" since the guideline states" the visual focus indicator for a
>> component must have sufficient (3:1) contrast against the adjacent
>> background when the component is focused". But the guideline goes on to
>> say
>> "except where the appearance of the component is determined by the user
>> agent and not modified by the author." I read this to say the guideline
>> only applies to sites that add any focus styles. If the site just doesn't
>> do anything to the outline or the focus, they can avoid 1.4.11 altogether.
>>
>
> From memory/paraphrasing, I believe the intention here was to make sure
> that a site wouldn't be failed for things outside of its control. For
> instance, if your site brings up a native alert() or similar - which is
> completely outside of author control in terms of styling - then you're
> exempted if the browser for some reason does a crappy job with the focus
> indication.
>
> Arguably, it's the browsers' responsibility to ensure their default (not
> styled by authors) focus indication is sufficiently visible - but you're
> right, this doesn't help the actual end users who struggle with certain
> browsers' defaults.
>
> This is indeed a loophole at present. I'd make it clear to clients that
> they may be following the letter, but not the spirit, of the SC...for what
> it's worth.
>
> P
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
>
> www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>
> > > > >



--
*John Foliot* | Principal Accessibility Strategist

Deque Systems - Accessibility for Good

deque.com

From: Jared Smith
Date: Tue, Sep 04 2018 4:03PM
Subject: Re: Reconciling WCAG 2.4.7 & 1.4.11
← Previous message | No next message

Peter Quale < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> But the guideline goes on to say
> "except where the appearance of the component is determined by the user
> agent and not modified by the author." I read this to say the guideline
> only applies to sites that add any focus styles.

There's been much debate about this, even in the W3C working group.
I'm not sure if it has been entirely resolved.

The primary argument revolves around the fact that this success
criterion applies to both components and states, but this exemption
only applies if "the *COMPONENT* is determined by the user agent". So
this would clearly exempt default components (such as text boxes), but
does not exempt default states (such as focus indicators). Or at least
that's the argument.

Some have even suggested that while 2.4.7 does not define what
"visible" means (very strictly, only totally invisible focus
indicators would fail), that the addition of 1.4.11 defines a contrast
threshold of 3:1 for "visible" in 2.4.7. I think this a bit of a
stretch of interpretation. Regardless, 3:1 is a good *minimal* value
to start with for such things.

As Patrick suggested, regardless of how you interpret this or what the
W3C ultimately decides these SC actually mean, it's certainly
advisable to ensure highly visible focus indicators (and components),
which inherently means they need sufficient contrast.

Jared Smith