-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 55
SC 1.4.11 boundaries and states of user interface components #914
Comments
For reference: there is AG WG discussion in a mail list thread |
[Official WG Response]: @goetsu SC text:
The search button at the top is identified by text (>4.5:1) and an image (>3:1) and this is viewed to be sufficient by the Working Group.
The Working Group views the White text and "X" for the menu button to be sufficient to identify the button/link to activate.
The menu graphic is >3:1 and the combination of the text and graphic makes it sufficiently clear that a control is present to be activated.
The Working Group did not intend for this interpretation. It is possible for controls without any borders to conform as long as the control can be identified and the approximate clickable region can be identified. |
the new SC text is better but highly interpretable. It will be painful for testing and to make people understand what they can or can't do but I suppose it's the best consensus you get. Understanding / definition / example / success criteria and failure must be reworked a lot otherwise I think most people will not understand it and know what pass or fail |
The WG decided on the above response, so we changed the text in the comment containing the proposed response to read "[Official WG Response]". Please confirm is you are satisfied with the response within 3 days. If we haven't heard a response by then we will regard the resolution as satisfactory. |
I'm ok for the update of the SC but the understanding document is still very perfectible :
and
I propose something like : any visual effects (border, background, outline, ...) that can't be removed without loosing indication of the component's hit area (the region where a pointer can activate the control) or indication of the component's state must have sufficient contrast with the adjacent background and This success criteria does not require that components have a visual effect indicating the hit area or state, but that if there is a visual effect that necessary to determine the hit area or state then it has sufficient contrast. |
@goetsu Great - I'm working on updates for the Understanding document and have marked this issue with the "Implementation follow-up" label so we will keep it in mind when updating the understanding document. |
Hello,
I'm a bit confuse because after looking at this SC and at websites in the implementation list
https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/implementation-report/implementation_list?unit=non-text-contrast&category=sc either I don't understand the boundaries and states case correctly either some of those website aren't compliant.
Maybe because a definition of "visual boundaries of the component" is missing in the understanding
for example with the interpretation I made of visual boundaries :
https://www.funka.com/en/ :
https://www.statefarm.com/ :
http://adrianroselli.com/2018/02/github-contributions-chart.html
https://knowbility.org/
http://www.lflegal.com/
https://www.microassist.com/project/viral-load-changes-hiv/
Also the understanding document state "the visual boundaries of the component must have sufficient contrast with the adjacent background" I think it must be "the visual boundaries of the component must have sufficient contrast with the external adjacent background on all sides of the component"
Otherwise it mean that if you have a light grey background input with a grey border on a white background the light grey background of the input itself must also have a contrast ratio of 3 at least against grey border
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: