List of comments on “Understanding WCAG 2.0” (dated 16 January 2014)

Status: allopen proposal pending resolved_yes resolved_no resolved_partial other Type: allsubstantive editorial typo question general comment undefined

Quick access to LC-2893 LC-2895

Comment LC-2893: Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.3

Commenter: Makoto Ueki <makoto.ueki@gmail.com> (archived message)

Context: Contrast (Enhanced): Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.1

Status:

open proposal pending resolved_yes resolved_no resolved_partial other assigned to Andrew Kirkpatrick

Type: substantive editorial typo question general comment undefined

Resolution status:

Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter

Response status:

No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):

Comment:

If a color of link text is changed when a mouse cursor is hovering over a link (by using CSS, a:hover), does the changed color also need to have a sufficient contrast ratio to meet SC 1.4.3 and/or 1.4.6?

Proposed Change:
I just want to make sure that　the changed color of link text is also required to have a sufficient contrast (or not).

Related issues: (space separated ids)

WG Notes: Received comments from Gregg V and Loretta on this one... GV: I would say that it would not be a failure for either a mouse or a keyboard focus. Here is the rationale. the purpose of high contrast is to allow it to be read. This is true for both the mouse and keyboard because the person can simply read it before focusing on it. They then focus on it and then activate it. It WOULD be nice if they could confirm it when selected -- but even with lower contrast they can probably still read it once they already know what it says. But either way, they can move off of it and read it - then move on to it and select it. The alternative would be to require that it have enough contrast either way-- but then there might not be much difference between selected and not selected -- which would be more confusing and unusable for the person with low vision. So I would say it was OK and in fact might be a better design than if it "selected" and "non-selected" both met the contrast rules. And I don't think it would technically fail the SC either.

Resolution: Thank you for your comment. The opinion of the working group is that the color-contrast ratio of the link text when focused or hovered does not need to meet 1.4.3/1.4.6. The goal of the color contrast success criteria is to ensure that content can be read by users, so as long as the links are sufficient contrast when not focused/hovered then they will meet 1.4.3/1.4.6. It is definitely preferred that focused/hovered link text also meet the contrast ratios as this enables users to re-read and verify the target of the link, but this represents more of a usability issue as the user can easily read the link text by removing focus or moving their pointer off the link.

(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)

Comment LC-2895: Add "Techniques for Specific Technologies"

Commenter: EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org> (archived message)

Context: Document as a whole

Status:

open proposal pending resolved_yes resolved_no resolved_partial other assigned to Joshue O Connor

Type: substantive editorial typo question general comment undefined

Resolution status:

Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter

Response status:

No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):

Comment:

Summary of Issue: Add "Techniques for Specific Technologies"
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
In WAI announcements and blogs (e.g., http://www.w3.org/blog/2012/01/wcag-techniques-learn-more/) over the last couple of years, we've been clarifying saying this (the proposed change), and it really belongs in the doc itself.

Proposed Change:
In Understanding Techniques for WCAG Success Criteria <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2014/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20140107/complete-diff.html#understanding-techniques> add a new section, right under the Techniques are Informative section <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2014/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20140107/complete-diff.html#ut-understanding-techniques-informative-head>:

<h3>Techniques for Specific Technologies
Publication of techniques for a specific technology does not imply that the technology can be used in all cases to create accessible content that meets WCAG 2.0. Developers need to be aware of the limitations of specific technologies and ensure that they provide content in a way that is accessible to all potential users.

Related issues: (space separated ids)

WG Notes:

Resolution: Thank you for your comment. As a result of our joint EOWG and WCAG meeting, we agreed to replace the text: "Publication of techniques for a specific technology does not imply that all uses of that technology will meet WCAG 2.0. Developers need to be aware of the limitations of specific technologies and provide content in ways that meets WCAG 2.0 success criteria." (found at http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/understanding-techniques.html#ut-understanding-techniques-general-tech-specific-head) with the text: Publication of techniques for a specific technology does not imply that the technology can be used in all situations to create content that meets WCAG 2.0 success criteria and conformance requirements. Developers need to be aware of the limitations of specific technologies and provide content in a way that is accessible to people with disabilities.

(Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)