Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

How does 2.4.12: Focus Not Obscured relate to opacity #2583

Closed
WilcoFiers opened this issue Aug 10, 2022 · 8 comments
Closed

How does 2.4.12: Focus Not Obscured relate to opacity #2583

WilcoFiers opened this issue Aug 10, 2022 · 8 comments

Comments

@WilcoFiers
Copy link
Contributor

Simple question: When a component is focused, and the component is covered by an element with an opacity of 95% would that count as obscuring? What about if the opacity is 5%?

A very literal reading of the SC would suggest that even at 99.9% opacity, the component isn't "entirely hidden". A more reasonable reading of the SC might suggest that perhaps the component could be considered "fully obscured" when the opacity is such that the focus indicator no longer meets the 3:1 contrast requirement of 2.4.11 Focus Appearance?

This feels like a significant enough gap in the SC that I think it might be worth updating the normative text, or perhaps a note.

@bruce-usab
Copy link
Contributor

I don't really like that fully obscured is (1) subjective and (2) maybe too much of a loophole.

But what number could we pick for the SC? I think Understanding could spell out some safe harbor examples. I like your 3:1 suggestion for worse-case-acceptable opacity.

@cstrobbe
Copy link

cstrobbe commented Aug 11, 2022

If the intent is to avoid other content overlapping the component that has focus, a rewording may be necessary, e.g.

When a user interface component receives keyboard focus, other author-created content does not entirely overlap it.

(I don't know whether that wording brings back the issue that was addressed by replacing "by" with "due to" in an earlier revision of 2.4.12. )

And then similarly for SC 2.4.13 at level AAA:

When a user interface component receives keyboard focus, no other author-created content overlaps it.

This would not allow overlaps by content with some level of opacity and would not require the introduction of an arbitrary level of opacity that is still considered "readable".

@alastc
Copy link
Contributor

alastc commented Aug 12, 2022

I haven't come across an example of this, and we've been testing for it for a while now.

If there is support for a simple change, e.g. "the component is not entirely overlapped by author-created content." (nice idea @cstrobbe), that's possible.

Otherwise I think we're in "perfect is the enemy of the good" territory.

@alastc
Copy link
Contributor

alastc commented Aug 26, 2022

Note from recent discussion on email and in meeting:

  • We should keep the current SC text, but…
  • We should add something to the understanding document about semi-transparent things that could obscure, and link through to 2.4.11.

I.e. if the focus indicator goes behind authored content that is semi-opaque, that doesn’t fail focus-not-obscured, but should be tested against 2.4.11. (Which would be good motivation to use scroll-padding or similar so it doesn’t overlap!)

@mbgower mbgower self-assigned this Sep 2, 2022
@rachaelbradley
Copy link
Contributor

Email conversation has some additional discussion.

@mbgower
Copy link
Contributor

mbgower commented Sep 9, 2022

@alastc @WilcoFiers I've just posted a rewrite of the Understanding document. It was difficult to figure out what to say, given the restraints of the conversation. I'm hoping this suffices.

@mbgower
Copy link
Contributor

mbgower commented Sep 9, 2022

I've added the ready for survey tag just to make sure this percolates up. I anticipates some more commits as a result of feedback!

@mbgower
Copy link
Contributor

mbgower commented Jan 13, 2023

@WilcoFiers the change to address opacity was added into the document, so I'm closing this. If you feel any part has not been addressed, please reopen.

@mbgower mbgower closed this as completed Jan 13, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

6 participants