E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 9 (In chronological order)

From: Mark Magennis
Date: Wed, Oct 02 2019 4:58AM
Subject: How important in practice is WCAG Technique G165: Using the default focus indicator for the platform?
No previous message | Next message →

--_004_BN7PR08MB419660B28C86B0BBBD0D547AE59C0BN7PR08MB4196namp_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

One of the Sufficient Techniques for WCAG 2.0 SC 2.4.7 Focus Visible is G16=
5: 'Using the default focus indicator for the platform so that high visibil=
ity default focus indicators will carry over'. I can see the logic in the s=
tatement "so that high visibility default focus indicators will carry over"=
. But does anyone have any views on how important this is in practice? Do A=
T (e.g. screen magnification) users often change the default focus indicato=
r in a way that would be used in a browser but overridden by a web page aut=
hor using their own focus indicator? Do platform controls also do this and =
how widely used are they? I'd welcome insight from anyone with exposure to =
a lot of AT users.

I also note that another Sufficient Technique for SC 2.4.7 is G195: 'Using =
an author-supplied, highly visible focus indicator', and this is also a Suf=
ficient Technique for WCAG 2.1 SC 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast. In fact, this i=
s its only Sufficient Technique for achieving this with UI components and I=
can see how relying on the browser default may not be enough given that di=
fferent UI components may have different colours and may be presented on di=
fferent coloured backgrounds.

So that would seem to support following G195 rather than G165. Any thoughts=
?

Mark

Mark Magennis
Skillsoft | mobile: +353 87 60 60 162
Accessibility Specialist
[cid: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = 95220]<http://www.skillsoft.com/>;


--_004_BN7PR08MB419660B28C86B0BBBD0D547AE59C0BN7PR08MB4196namp_
Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="image001.jpg"
Content-Description: image001.jpg
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.jpg"; size=1497;
creation-date="Wed, 02 Oct 2019 10:58:55 GMT";
modification-date="Wed, 02 Oct 2019 10:58:55 GMT"
Content-ID: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = 95220>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
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--_004_BN7PR08MB419660B28C86B0BBBD0D547AE59C0BN7PR08MB4196namp_--

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Wed, Oct 02 2019 5:45AM
Subject: Re: How important in practice is WCAG Technique G165: Using the default focus indicator for the platform?
← Previous message | Next message →

On 02/10/2019 11:58, Mark Magennis wrote:
> One of the Sufficient Techniques for WCAG 2.0 SC 2.4.7 Focus Visible is G165: 'Using the default focus indicator for the platform so that high visibility default focus indicators will carry over'. I can see the logic in the statement "so that high visibility default focus indicators will carry over". But does anyone have any views on how important this is in practice? Do AT (e.g. screen magnification) users often change the default focus indicator in a way that would be used in a browser but overridden by a web page author using their own focus indicator? Do platform controls also do this and how widely used are they? I'd welcome insight from anyone with exposure to a lot of AT users.
>
> I also note that another Sufficient Technique for SC 2.4.7 is G195: 'Using an author-supplied, highly visible focus indicator', and this is also a Sufficient Technique for WCAG 2.1 SC 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast. In fact, this is its only Sufficient Technique for achieving this with UI components and I can see how relying on the browser default may not be enough given that different UI components may have different colours and may be presented on different coloured backgrounds.
>
> So that would seem to support following G195 rather than G165. Any thoughts?

Sufficient techniques are just suggestions of what an author could do to
pass the SC. They can be mutually exclusive or contradictory. They're
not an exhaustive list of approaches, nor are they necessarily best
practices or strongly recommended. They're quite literally "well, this
will probably suffice to claim you pass" in many cases.

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: Mark Magennis
Date: Wed, Oct 02 2019 5:51AM
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]How important in practice is WCAG Technique G165: Using the default focus indicator for the platform?
← Previous message | Next message →

Given that these two techniques are contradictory, which would be your preferred approach? What I'm really getting at is how important is the "high visibility default focus indicators will carry over" consideration?

Mark Magennis
Skillsoft | mobile: +353 87 60 60 162
Accessibility Specialist

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Wed, Oct 02 2019 5:57AM
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]How important in practice is WCAG Technique G165: Using the default focus indicator for the platform?
← Previous message | Next message →

On 02/10/2019 12:51, Mark Magennis wrote:
> Given that these two techniques are contradictory, which would be your preferred approach? What I'm really getting at is how important is the "high visibility default focus indicators will carry over" consideration?

My personal preference when building my own stuff would be to ensure my
own author-supplied focus indicator. Normatively the focus visible SC
doesn't say what "visible" actually means, so in theory just for that SC
it could be a single faint extra pixel that appears on focus and you
could claim it be a pass. The new 1.4.11 non-text contrast SC will then
force you to (probably, if there's no other indicator) make sure that
single pixel has at least a contrast of 3:1, but that's about it.

So purely within the realm of compliance to WCAG, that's about it.
Anything beyond that is more usability...

(sorry, I know I'm still not answering your core question - which
leaving WCAG completely aside, is more about "this high visibility
platform indicator...is it a thing? is it common?" because I don't have
an immediate answer here - particularly since browers all do their own
thing anyway, and don't necessarily follow platform conventions or
settings in many cases, and if there's AT involved, THAT may force an
additional focus indicator anyway making it irrelevant what the platform
or the page actually does :) )

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: Mark Magennis
Date: Wed, Oct 02 2019 6:58AM
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]How important in practice is WCAG Technique G165: Using the default focus indicator for the platform?
← Previous message | Next message →

You're right Patrick. The WCAG thing was a bit of a red herring and the question is really about whether defining a focus indicator will adversely affect users who define their own. It just arose within the context of a discussion on those WCAG suggested techniques.

Mark Magennis
Skillsoft | mobile: +353 87 60 60 162
Accessibility Specialist

From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Wed, Oct 02 2019 9:43PM
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]How important in practice is WCAG Technique G165: Using the default focus indicator for the platform?
← Previous message | Next message →

The way I think of 2.4.7 is that if you leave the focus indicator
style to the user agent, you are not responsible for its visibility,
if you go with user agent default settings it's the user agent's
problem so to speak.
The minute you override user agent defaults you become responsible for
ensuring that your implementation is WCAG conformant across the board.
Rolling your own is good if you want consistency with your brand, your
site, across user agents, going with user agent defaults is good if
you don't want to worry about WCAG and think that providing a custom
indicator could confuse people who are used to a certain user agent.



On 10/2/19, Mark Magennis < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> You're right Patrick. The WCAG thing was a bit of a red herring and the
> question is really about whether defining a focus indicator will adversely
> affect users who define their own. It just arose within the context of a
> discussion on those WCAG suggested techniques.
>
> Mark Magennis
> Skillsoft | mobile: +353 87 60 60 162
> Accessibility Specialist
>
>
>

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Thu, Oct 03 2019 12:55AM
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]How important in practice is WCAG Technique G165: Using the default focus indicator for the platform?
← Previous message | Next message →

On 03/10/2019 04:43, Birkir R. Gunnarsson wrote:
...
> Rolling your own is good if you want consistency with your brand, your
> site, across user agents, going with user agent defaults is good if
> you don't want to worry about WCAG and think that providing a custom
> indicator could confuse people who are used to a certain user agent.

Rolling your own is also necessary when some browsers are far from smart
in how they provide their default focus indicator. Take Chrome's blue
focus outline...sure, it's nice and all, but if your site already uses a
similar blue color palette for backgrounds and such, it'll become pretty
hard/impossible to see. So sometimes, if you know a large number of your
audience comes from that particular user agent, as a site owner you make
a calculated decision to provide a good clear focus indicator for that
audience (though yes, you could just leave it as is and say it's
Chrome's fault...which yes, it is...but that won't help your visitors).

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: Mallory
Date: Sat, Oct 05 2019 2:44AM
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL]How important in practice is WCAG Technique G165: Using the default focus indicator for the platform?
← Previous message | Next message →

...another consideration is Firefox. By default, it uses the text colour for the outline colour. You'll notice if you round things with border-radius that the outline may easily become 100% invisible (if the page is white, and the control text is white, and the control background is some dark colour... you'll have a white focus ring against that white page background).

Another is something I've unfortunately started to see (it MUST be coming from a framework or something because it's always the exact same code): outline: auto 5px -webkit-focus-ring (from memory, I may have misspelled the name). This is of course no colour in non-blink/non-webkit browsers (now that Edge is moving to chromium, this basically leaves Mozilla out). Also "auto" in some UAs is calculated to 0.

Some magnification tools offer a user-set focus ring (ZoomText for example has some nice ones), and I've not seen a web page be able to override that (for screen magnification, it seems to always "sit on top" of the page, meaning if you took a screenshot using the usual OS screenshot/PrintScreen tools you won't see any of the effects of the magnification). The same seems to go for the visual-focus addon for NVDA: it draws the focus "on top" of the page and the page seems to have no access. Based on those two instances, I've not worried about my author styles accidentally pooing on a user's AT settings.

There's a possibility that user agents will later incorporate an accessibility feature to "force a clear, obvious focus" which users can turn on in the browser (or via an OS setting), which we voted on as part of the Web We Want presentation at the recent ViewSource conference. I assume this will not be breakable by authoring styles.

So all that said, it feels you should be safe setting your own author styles without worrying that you'll override an AT-set focus style. I can't say for certain but from videos I've seen from Chris Hills that this should also hold for Switch Control, but I've not tested. Users who can write their own stylesheets should be able to override author-set focus styles as well, so long as the author doesn't use CSS Modules (you know, that thing where every time the site is rebuilt, new CSS class names are generated, meaning users can't reliably target by class name) to set focus styles (use something which reliably remains to target the element instead).

cheers,
_mallory

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019, at 8:55 AM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> On 03/10/2019 04:43, Birkir R. Gunnarsson wrote:
> ...
> > Rolling your own is good if you want consistency with your brand, your
> > site, across user agents, going with user agent defaults is good if
> > you don't want to worry about WCAG and think that providing a custom
> > indicator could confuse people who are used to a certain user agent.
>
> Rolling your own is also necessary when some browsers are far from smart
> in how they provide their default focus indicator. Take Chrome's blue
> focus outline...sure, it's nice and all, but if your site already uses a
> similar blue color palette for backgrounds and such, it'll become pretty
> hard/impossible to see. So sometimes, if you know a large number of your
> audience comes from that particular user agent, as a site owner you make
> a calculated decision to provide a good clear focus indicator for that
> audience (though yes, you could just leave it as is and say it's
> Chrome's fault...which yes, it is...but that won't help your visitors).
>
> 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: Guy Hickling
Date: Mon, Oct 07 2019 2:12PM
Subject: Re: How important in practice is WCAG Technique G165: Using the default focus indicator for the platform?
← Previous message | No next message

Birkir wrote, and Patrick added to it:-

>> "Rolling your own is good if you want consistency with your brand, your
site, across user agents, going with user agent defaults is good if you
don't want to worry about WCAG and think that providing a custom indicator
could confuse people who are used to a certain user agent."

There is also another scenario where rolling your own focus indicator is a
must. It's an absolute necessity for anyone who spends money on SEO. I
posted a week ago on Twitter (https://twitter.com/GuyHickling though it's a
tweet that seems to have gone unnoticed unfortunately) that it's complete
nonsense to spend loads-a-money on SEO in the hope that maybe you'll get
more visitors to your site, but then throw away a load of people who have
actually got to the site simply because you can't be bothered to give them
a decent focus indicator to navigate by!

Getting back to G165 as mentioned in the original question, there are a
small number of WCAG Techniques that I think should be struck from the
record, or at least have Notes added to strongly deprecate them. G165 is
one of them. (And G183 is another and that also, interestingly, is to do
with a visual matter.) People read G165 and immediately think "Ok, so
that's alright then, I can leave it to the browser"! It isn't alright from
where I'm standing, my sight is going down the pan at a rate of knots and
it gets increasingly difficult for me see the browser focus indicators. So
I know many people with worse sight than mine will have the greatest
trouble with them. The WCAG was written for those people, and its very
unfortunate that

Finally, on the original question which concerned ".....the question is
really about whether defining a focus indicator will adversely affect users
who define their own". Provided the user includes !important on the style
settings in their stylesheets, that overrides anything the website author
can do. See the W3C's CSS cascade rules about that at
https://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/cascade.html.

Regards,
Guy Hickling