Focused state: SC 1.4.1 Use of Color #3018
Replies: 14 comments 11 replies
-
|
I would yes |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I agree with Patrick, there is no luminance contrast between boxes (Lc 0). However, the blue box line is twice as thick as the grey box, as spatial contrasts are not well considered in WCAG 2, not sure you could say pass other than "it's 'something' more than color" at best it's an edge case. IMO better to keep the grey box and ADD the blue line outside it. And the sim:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I personally never considered state to be covered by 1.4.1. If you do, this SC is basically a stricter version of 1.4.11, as it has no exceptions inactive components, user agent defaults, or essential presentation. I'm not sure there's anything in 1.4.11 that wouldn't be covered by 1.4.1 if you start applying it to state changes. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
is colour alone used to indicate the state? if so, then that falls under 1.4.1's purview. leaving focus aside, think of other states like pressed/not pressed. if the fact that a button is pressed or not pressed is only indicated through a subtle difference in colour, then...it fails 1.4.1, no? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I'm not convinced that it does. If you style a link to have different colors for its unvisited, visited, hover, and focus state, would you expect a contrast of 3:1 between all of them? I didn't do the math, but I don't think 3:1 between 4 colors is possible. What I find most interesting about this conversation is that in the development of Focus appearance in WCAG 2.2 I don't remember anyone ever bringing up 1.4.1. 1.4.11 came up regularly, but not this one. It's also interesting that a couple years ago luminance wasn't included in the understanding documents / techniques as sufficient for this SC. I remember voting against that change. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
This was me calling the rest of the AGWG's bluff about technique G183 trying to redefine things by the backdoor #201 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Are you suggesting then that a link that has different colors for focused, hovered, and neither needs a contrast of 3:1 between those three states? That's the part I don't like about this whole "state is information" thing. First AG adds a non-normative 3:1 minimum to make it work. There's no reason for it to be 3:1, it's pulled out of thin air. We then got the visited/unvisited problem, which required another non-normative exception (#3222). I don't think that's the last state difference where a 3:1 contrast isn't useful, and for which we'll need to write more edge cases. I concede that the way AG has been explaining 1.4.1 the last couple years, focus contrast does sort of fit under that now. But that we had to write these non-normative exceptions doesn't seems off. It suggests to me we took a wrong turn a couple years ago and are now just making it up as we go. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
for "hovered", the change in colour is not the only visual information I'd argue. the fact that your pointer is over it also counts (whereas for focus, if the change in colour is the only indication that something's focused, then yes it needs to be clear enough)
supposedly that's a threshold at which even people with impaired colour vision supposedly can tell the difference. but yes i won't deny that the contrast ratios themselves feel a bit pulled out of ... something/somewhere.
well yes, there's a lot of WCAG 2.x that has been historically broken, and should ideally have been properly amended, but because of the "only add/never remove/make it backwards compatible" mantra we've just carried the things from one version to the next. and this is definitely one of those cases. but...it is what it is now, and we can only hope to mitigate it (non-normatively) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
It does fall under 1.4.1 is my understanding, when only color is being used to convey the information or state in which an element is present AND that default color and focussed color is less than 3:1 contrast ratio. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
In the above screenshot which I provided, the thicker surrounding border plays a significant role in conveying the focused state, so the color is not only meant to convey the focused state((if we are considering it as a Use of color failure) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
This scenario will fail here(if we are considering it as a Use of color failure)
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Yea
Luminance should never be discussed (except in background) when talking about content.
Luminance is only relevant if you are talking about hardware — since it refers to the level of emission of light — and content doesnt emit light.
With all the HDR now even talking about relative luminance is complicated.
I think Andrew Somers has a long treatise on all of this
gregg
…------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden
***@***.***
On Aug 7, 2023, at 4:31 AM, Patrick H. Lauke ***@***.***> wrote:
xref #905 <#905> #896 <#896> #1775 <#1775> #402 <#402>
It's also interesting that a couple years ago luminance wasn't included in the understanding documents / techniques as sufficient for this SC. I remember voting against that change
This was me calling the rest of the AGWG's bluff about technique G183 trying to redefine things by the backdoor #201 <#201>
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#3018 (reply in thread)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACNGDXQOIZWF35LDL3ACUSTXUDGZRANCNFSM6AAAAAAUY3FDVQ>.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
he has nothing but long treatises... |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Hi @GreggVan & @patrickhlauke
The irony is I am also an aphoristI do recognize that I am not reaching the accessibility community as intended. It is a significant concern that I have been taking steps to address. One such step is using tools like HemmingwayApp to guide a reduction to plain language, such as in: APCA Easy Intro. Otherwise I find myself in a "damned if I do, crucified if I don't" situation.
😳 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Agree
But I THINK the visited links color is a function of the browser.
So unless the content specifically changes those (with CSS for example) I THINK it is out of scope for the author of the content.
I THINK somewhere we talk about things that are "behaviors" of the browser rather than the content…. And that browsers were responsible for browsers and Authors were responsible for content.
I also think - that we need to tread carefully here— there may be unintended consequences
Thoughts?
gregg
…------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden
***@***.***
On Aug 7, 2023, at 3:36 AM, Patrick H. Lauke ***@***.***> wrote:
then what in 1.4.1 suggests to you that it is about comparing a component / page in two different states
is colour alone used to indicate the state? if so, then that fall under 1.4.1's purview.
leaving focus aside, think of other states like pressed/not pressed. if the fact that a button is pressed or not pressed is only indicated through a subtle difference in colour, then...it fails 1.4.1, no?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#3018 (reply in thread)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACNGDXULMPS5H56WMLQJTWTXUDAJDANCNFSM6AAAAAAUY3FDVQ>.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
these aspects were hashed out (for visited) in the referenced other issues, so don't think there's any value going over these again here |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Grin
Yea - and maybe some are too detailed — but sometimes things are just that complicated — and a long treatise is the only way to get it all out.
In this case I suggest a small number of very stout explorers look at the whole colors and contrast etc space — come to a conclusion — and then bring back the simplest version they can and then we trust that group. The group of course would be open so anyone CAN join that wants to go through the pain of it all — but in the end you find there is no clear answer — but there can be a clear path to the best recommended provision.
gregg
———————————
Professor, University of Maryland, College Park
Founder and Director Emeritus , Trace R&D Center, UMD
Co-Founder Raising the Floor. http://raisingthefloor.org
The Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure (GPII) http://GPII.net
The Morphic project https://morphic.org
… On Aug 7, 2023, at 12:25 PM, Patrick H. Lauke ***@***.***> wrote:
I think Andrew Somers has a long treatise on all of this
he has nothing but long treatises...
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#3018 (reply in thread)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACNGDXUKHM544YM2HVNM6KLXUE6JPANCNFSM6AAAAAAUY3FDVQ>.
You are receiving this because you commented.
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
as AGWG will pivot almost exclusively to WCAG 3 and consider 2.2 "good enough", I wonder what further outcome there may be from when these explorers come back though. in any event, it will be informative/non-normative, provided they find somebody willing to then merge anything to the non-normative documents at all... (assuming/hoping there's some long term maintenance planned still for 2.2's informative documents, one that maybe can take account of the 200+ pull requests that deal with clarifications that have been stagnating so far...) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Hi @GreggVan
Visual perception and color is still an area of active research and occasional controversy. It is deep, rich, unintuitive, abstract, bizarre, and shakes people's sense of reality when they climb the curve. It's challenging to chop it into meaningful "sound bites" that are not creating further misunderstanding. The most reduced, yet comprehensive presentation on the subject I have is The Realities And Myths Of Contrast And Color, which covers the specific key issues of contrast for text and non-text in web content. I'm hoping you have time to read it, as it presents most of what I've been talking about in a concise and comprehensive form. I believe it will answer many of your questions. And I am offering to do a zoom call with you, and provide you a presentation of the work; that offer stands. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Hi @GreggVan
We already have, and had, very stout explorers, and a simplest version that is already being widely adopted called APCA. We have an even simpler version called DPS contrast. We also have a drop in replacement for WCAG 2 math called Bridge PCA that is fully backwards compatible to WCAG 2. This has been an ongoing process for 4½ years. VISUAL CONTRAST TIMELINES 2019-2023A brief account of the "stout explorers" who have been or are involved.CLICK to view Timeline of Key Persons Involved2019This began in April 2019, when I started thread #695, Bruce Bailey @bruce-usab was assigned to the project, and I became an invited expert. June 7, 2019, you and I had an extended email exchange on the subject. Summer of 2019 was the Visual Contrast Subgroup with Cybele Sack and Chuck Adams @cwadamsoforacle. December 2019, an early draft guideline was developed for Silver, Bruce Bailey @bruce-usab calculated the first lookup table. 2020COVID... I continued my work, things slowed a bit due to COVID. In mid 2020, Bruce Bailey @bruce-usab and Chris Loiselle @ChrisLoiselle and I restarted the Visual Contrast subgroup, and work continued in earnest, working toward the WCAG 3 FPWD. Nov 2020, Todd Libby @colabottles joined Visual Contrast. Dec 2020, Sam Waller @sdw32, a PhD at Cambridge UK, joined the Visual Contrast subgroup. 2021Jan 21, 2021, the FPWD is published, including an early rough draft of APCA guidelines. Feb 15, 2021 APCA beta 0.0.98G-4g (current version) went live. The current APCA-W3 0.98G-4g has been in public beta since Feb. 15, 2021. Aug 2021 Low Vision Task Force absorbed the Visual Contrast group, Jon Avila, Shawn Henry and others became involved. Guideline progress was made, as well as test and eval. Dec 2021, the apca-w3 npm package was published amid growing public support. Dec 2021, we released Bridge PCA, a drop-in replacement for WCAG 2.x math that addresses concerns of backwards compatibility to WCAG 2. 2021 into 2022, Sam Waller @sdw32 reviewed and tested APCA, providing challenges, feedback, and discussion, for over a year. 2022March 2022: Sam Waller @sdw32 published his independent review of APCA as Does the contrast ratio actually predict the legibility of website text? Among his conclusions, he stated:
April 2022: certain major stakeholders reach out regarding a wider scope and future for the methods. May 2022: minor adjustments to the font table, and generated a PR encompassing all of the '21-'22 updates (see APCA Milestones). June 2022, W3C Technical Director Chris Lilly @svgeesus conducted a comprehensive peer review of APCA & the PR, in part because CSS needs a perceptually uniform contrast metric in order to provide for automated color tools as part of CSS. Aug 2022, As WCAG 3 was essentially restarting from ground up, all guidelines were to be removed, pending a new conformance model. 2023Feb 8, 2023, STARK adds APCA as an experimental option to their product line, joining dozens of other tools and design systems. March 2023, WCAG 3 is a distant future, yet there remains a need for perceptually uniform contrast methods for dark mode, automated colors, and to serve a larger scope. Inclusive Reading Technologies, (IRT), a California Non-Profit, was conceived to fill this need. IRT hosts the APCA Readability Criterion at ReadTech.org/ARC/ . A brief account of APCA development milestonesCLICK to view Timeline of Key APCA Dev Milestones. Timeline of the Silver Visual Contrast Group's efforts and milestones.
As this was intended to illustrate, a very substantial amount of work was done in the nearly 2 years between October 2020 and May/July 2022.
The work continues with expanded scope.
. CURRENT WORK
Well, we've provided clear answers and a clear path. The simplest solution is what we are calling "Bronze Simple Mode" — no lookup table, just a few specific thresholds, similar to the workflow of WCAG 2, but here using perceptually uniform contrast metrics. Thank you for reading. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Hi @GreggVan, @patrickhlauke, @WilcoFiers In an effort to briefly post, I will avoid nuance, and instead link to Readmore¹.
At the very least, different rules should apply. A map or chart with colors is content, and meta state indicator is meta data, not content. Click for bonus content.
And number 5: it is actually a bit difficult to change hue without also changing luminance, depending on the color-adjust model being used. HSL or HSV for instance are non-uniform, so a hue change by itself results in a luminance change. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ————————————————
It's not possible, and not even close for SDR such as sRGB. If you have a text that is 4.5:1 against a BG, then you can have no more than ONE other color text that is > 3:1 from the text that is 4.5:1, and also farther from the BG. Only OneClick for bonus content.If it was possible it might not be meaningful, either. Coding data with luminance-only is poor, the FAA generally limits luminance coding to three levels (black, grey, white as I understand it). The reason is, on its own, a gray is difficult to distinguish from other grays, unless they are immediately adjacent. That makes multiple luminance levels a poor choice for indicating multiple distinctly separate meta-states. Essentially, color, as in hue, allows independent object discrimination for standard vision. Of course, that becomes a problem for CVD. But color, as in hue, is not what we need for readability or for detecting fine details—that's all luminance. Colorblind individuals don't have functional problems with readability (with the exception of reds, oranges, or purples that are paired with black for protans). CVD actually have as good or better than standard luminance contrast sensitivityfor readability⁷⁻⁸. Where CVD may have an issue is independent color discrimination or identification, and protan and achromats with a luminance deficit in reds. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ————————————————
Yes, Really thin air, surprisingly some of these "traditional" values lack empirical evidence... See Dr. Arditi's scathing 2017 paper "Rethinking ADA signage standards for low-vision accessibility"² (The "70% contrast" in the paper is the functional equivalent of "3:1") ————————————————
There is no relationship to color vision deficiency here, with the one exception of reds against black for protans. When it comes to reading, it is all about achromatic luminance contrast, and CVD has equal or better luminance contrast sensitivity⁷⁻⁸. ————————————————
Quote from Arditi's paper:²
And then we might ask how some of this ended up in WCAG 2.0³, this links to a thread on that specific topic with further references. Click for bonus content.The posts on that link³ detail the origins of 4.5:1.... And it gets worse. In the understanding, it says "3:1 is for 20/20, so for 20/40, multiply by the 1.5 (that IMO has very weak support) and that's why 4.5:1"... Except the referenced ISO standard specifically states the 3:1 is already targeted at 20/40. I describe at the link how the 1.5 is not well supported. Not to mention ISO and the ANSI appear to be only referencing monochrome matrix-raster, (i.e. green and black) CRTs⁴ which were common in 1988. What 4.5:1 does do, for smaller text that often gets subsumed by antialiasing, it gives it a tiny boost. Which would be great, except the Understanding docs say antialiasing is not considered, and permits AA to be turned off for testing. I'm skipping the fact that 4.5:1 can be woefully inadequate (esp. for body text), or paradoxically, much more than needed (big fat buttons), depending on use case and spatial characteristics. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ————————————————
Yes, some things in 2.0 had unintended consequences⁹. And then some things in 2.1 extended some consequences. In #201 I have some of those "long treatises"⁵ you've heard so much about, this link in particular demonstrates the futility of 3:1 in this context of use (inline link discrimination). ————————————————
The "backwards compatible mandate" is unfortunate and ill-conceived, it implies that nothing is wrong, nothing can go wrong, nor will ever be wrong, as if an infinite knowledge of the future was at hand. And in reading the available evidence regarding WCAG 2 contrast, there was no formal testing, no peer review, and some (IBM) raised objections at the time. But just because it's broken doesn't mean it can't be fixed
————————————————
Content emits light when that content is displayed on a self-illuminating display or device. The absolute peak white luminance of the display may be an unknown, but it's not a total mystery either, and we can make reasonable assumptions about the display settings.
Click for bonus content.A common reference peak is 120nit (XRite, also ISO 3664:2000 standard), about 40nit more than the sRGB standard. Though some phones go up to 1200 or 1600 nit—but those will be et high in bright environments where they HVS is adapted to that brighter ambient. What is actually important is perceived lightness, and we have a better chance of predicting that because that is relative to the HVS light adaptation. The "standard" is a display peak white ~ 5 times the luminance of the diffuse surround (the wall and whatnot around the display, we assume surround is 20% of peak white). So, if the surround is 24nits, then the monitor peak white is 120nits. The assumption that we're making here is that the illumination in that environment is 20% gray ends up around 24nits. How APCA Does itFor the record, basic APCA converts content to Ys (estimated screen luminance) for each color, then to a polarity sensitive perceptual lightness, then determines perceptual lightness contrast (Lc), then calculates the minimum recommended spatial characteristics (font weight/sized or line thickness). ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ————————————————
Yes, it can be a default like other HTML tags that have defaults in the browser. Ever since HTML5 where all presentation was moved to CSS, links are commonly styled. SEE: Draft Inline Links Guidance⁶ open discussion. ————————————————
A problem arises, if you don't change the link colors, but you are changing other colors of the interface such as the background, for instance for dark mode, if the user agent doesn't recognize that you're using a dark background, the default link colors can become unreadable.... I am seeing this too often in the wild... IMO: Style one, style all.Thank you for reading. Opinions, where expressed, are mine and do not necessarily represent the views of the W3C or AGWG. Footnotes:
NOTE: Edited to add references, adjust tone, and clarify some misunderstandings. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I don’t know where to start
This post contains both accurate and inaccurate information.
My understanding is that we are going to set up a subgroup to go over all of this — so I will wait until then to comment.
PS it is not helpful to post disparaging comments. Data - yes. Believed Facts — should be posted as I Believe. Opinions - fine labeled as opinions - even if you think you are right.
We all forget this from time to time. Since this is so controversial (evidently) - it would be good for all of use to switch to this mode til we work this out
Post about ideas - not people (singular or plural)
gregg
———————————
Professor, University of Maryland, College Park
Founder and Director Emeritus , Trace R&D Center, UMD
Co-Founder Raising the Floor. http://raisingthefloor.org
The Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure (GPII) http://GPII.net
The Morphic project https://morphic.org
… On Aug 8, 2023, at 2:30 AM, Myndex ***@***.***> wrote:
Hi @GreggVan <https://github.com/GreggVan>, @patrickhlauke <https://github.com/patrickhlauke>, @WilcoFiers <https://github.com/WilcoFiers>
In an effort to briefly post, I will avoid nuance, and instead link to Readmore¹.
PL...is colour alone used to indicate the state? if so, then that falls under 1.4.1's purview....
WF...I'm not convinced that it does....
At the very least, different rules should apply. A map or chart with colors is content, and meta state indicator is meta data, not content.
Click for bonus content
————————————————
WF...different colors for its unvisited, visited, hover, and focus state...I don't think 3:1 between 4 colors is possible...
It's not possible, and it's not even close. If you have a text that is 4.5:1 against a BG, then you can have no more than ONE other color text that is > 3:1 from the text that is 4.5:1.
Only ONE
Click for bonus content
————————————————
...There's no reason for it to be 3:1, it's pulled out of thin air...
Yea, Really thin air, maybe even out of a vacuum... See Dr. Arditi's scathing 2017 paper "Rethinking ADA signage standards for low-vision accessibility" <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5433805/>² (The references to "70% contrast" in the paper is the functional equivalent of "3:1")
————————————————
...supposedly that's a threshold at which even people with impaired colour vision supposedly can tell the difference...
No, it's a phantasm, and one that's been around a long time. There is no relationship to color vision deficiency. It's much more of a "we always done it this way Mr. George".
————————————————
...but yes i won't deny that the contrast ratios themselves feel a bit pulled out of ... something/somewhere...
From Arditi's paper: <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5433805/>²
"...a participant in the Georgia Tech signage workshop and apparently supplied the 70% [3:1] figure as a trusted authority, but he provided no evidence or rationale for that particular choice..."
And then we might ask how some of this ended up in WCAG 2 <#1705 (comment)>³
Click for bonus content
<#1705 (comment)> <https://tangledweb.xyz/a-contrast-of-errors-373c2665d42a>
————————————————
...It suggests to me we took a wrong turn a couple years ago and are now just making it up as we go...
Yes, some things in 2.0 had unintended consequences. And then some things in 2.1 extended consequences. In #201 <#201> I have some of those "long treatises" <#201 (comment)>⁵ you've heard so much about, this link in particular demonstrates the futility of 3:1 in this context of use.
————————————————
...a lot of WCAG 2.x that has been historically broken, and should ideally have been properly amended, but because of the "only add/never remove/make it backwards compatible" mantra we've just carried the things from one version to the next...
The "backwards compatible mandate" is a shocking hubris, it implies that nothing can go wrong, nor will be wrong, ever, as if an infinite knowledge of the future was possessed. And this for things that were not tested, not peer reviewed, and some objected to at the time.
But just because it's broken doesn't mean it can't be fixed
discard the backwards compatibility thing
recognize why/how a it's broken, the fix will be apparent
I think I might have written about the "why" somewhere...
————————————————
...Luminance should never be discussed (except in background) when talking about content...
Yet WCAG 2.x contrast math converts content to relative luminance, adds an offset, and then does a simple ratio. So...
————————————————
...Luminance is only relevant if you are talking about hardware — since it refers to the level of emission of light — and content doesnt emit light...
Content emits light when displayed on a self-illuminating display or device. The absolute peak white luminance of the display may be an unknown, but it's not a total mystery, and we can make reasonable assumptions about the display settings. #FFFFFF is peak white, D65, set to 120 cd/m²...
Click for bonus content
————————————————
...But I THINK the visited links color is a function of the browser...
Sure, it can be… Just like other HTML tags have defaults in the browser.
Links are very commonly styled in CSS, including visited, unvisited, hover, active...
SEE: Draft Inline Links Guidance <Myndex/SAPC-APCA#65>⁶ open discussion.
————————————————
...So unless the content specifically changes those...I THINK it is out of scope for the author of the content...
A problem arises if you don't change the link colors, but you are changing other colors of the interface such as the background. For instance for dark mode, if the user agent doesn't recognize that you're using a dark background, the default link colors can be unreadable.... and I am seeing this too often in the wild.
Style one, style all.
Thank you for reading.
Footnotes:
"Readmore" is a small town on the outskirts of Narnia. I hear they have a nice pub.
Arditi on ADA signage and unsupported contrast claims <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5433805/>
Where did that 1.5 multiplication come from anyway? <#1705 (comment)>
A Contrast of Errors <https://tangledweb.xyz/a-contrast-of-errors-373c2665d42a>
Some Long Treatises on 1.4.1 and 3:1 and FAA <#201 (comment)>
A Discussion of Inline Links (Theory and Practice) <Myndex/SAPC-APCA#65>
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#3018 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACNGDXWAXPONDTCBCHE6RQDXUIBNFANCNFSM6AAAAAAUY3FDVQ>.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Hi @GreggVan I know I can be direct, but I don't intend to be disparaging, I am going to review my post and edit it to correct that vibe. Accuracy
This concerns me. I provided authoritative references for information of controversy. I would really very much like to understand what you identify as inaccurate, as it may be in my presentation or resulting from very recent research? The Work is Continuous
Okay, though to mention I and others have been working on this project for 4½ years. And I have encouraged your interaction previously as well. Disparagement
I'm sorry if I came across as specifically disparaging to anyone as that is certainly not my intention. I am going to re-edit my post to see if I missed such things which I sometimes do, and I do try to mitigate that. But, if I can draw your attention to this in your earlier post:
I feel that I need to point out that, this statement is disparaging to myself and the others, who have been working on color and contrast as "stout explorers" for 4.5 years here. (Not withstanding my lifetime of professional experience in the related fields of color, light, typography, digital imaging, cinematography, etc.). We have already presented complete functional solutions that have received very favorable review and early adoption, and has been in public beta for 2½ years. This statement made in that post was quite dismissive, and in view of the several times I've presented the current state of the project, references, documentation, to you with an open door for your input, I have to say it was taken as directly insulting. If that caused a negative bias in my tone through my other recent posts that I didn't realize, I do apologize. Red Green Blue Hot
This has become a divisive hot button issue, and there is an undercurrent of rumor, misinformation, and personal derision that is beyond infuriating. I've been taking steps to find solutions.
I normally do have a common disclaimer on my posts where I am concerned regarding opinions, that states "any opinions are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of the W3 or AGWG". While it may not be on every single post I make, it is certainly implied. I proactively apply such a disclaimer on material I author that is published elsewhere. Here it appears "understood", at least as I read other's posts. But otherwise, if I'm making statements about "controversial" facts, I will in most cases be providing references to a specific authoritative source, which is listed in footnotes or linked directly. Nevertheless, there may be cases where facts that I consider to be academic, may actually have a controversial weight from some points of view. I do try to be sensitive to that. So again, I ask if there is something that you feel that I'm out of line with, I really do need to know so that I can either provide the appropriate foundation, or review my position. Minus hominems
I agree, I don't believe I posted about any people, other than the specific references from Dr. Arditi's paper. Again I'm going to review my post right now to see if anything might be taken as directed at a person. I have no tolerance for ad hominems—with this project, I personally have been attacked, doxxed, harassed, slandered, libeled, and apparently now the recipient of dishonest & bizarre smear rumors from the society of trolls that inflame the controversy surrounding this subject. I am careful not to engage or present any ad hominems myself. If you do feel there is anything that appears or feels like an ad hominem toward you, I am:
Thank you for reading |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I have a scenario where the visual boundary color of the checkbox changes to blue on the keyboard tab focus.
The unfocused state of the checkbox has a color of #8E8E8E and the focused state has a color of #2680EB.
Unfocused state of the checkbox( visual Boundary color): #8E8E8E
Focused state of the checkbox( visual boundary of checkbox - Blue color): #2680EB
The difference between these two colors is only 1.2:1, which is less than 3:1.
Will consider it as a failure of the use of color SC?
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions