List of comments on “Understanding WCAG 2.0 (Public Review Draft)” (dated 24 July 2014)

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

Quick access to LC-2943 LC-2944 LC-2949

Comment LC-2944: Placeholder text contrast

Commenter: Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com> on behalf of Deque (archived message)

Context: Visual Presentation: Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.3

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:

Summary of Issue: Does placeholder text in form fields need to meet 1.4.3?
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
We are having a debate (within Deque and with a client) on the color contrast of placeholder text. The default color of placeholder text in browsers does not meet the 4.5 to 1 color contrast requirement. At Deque, we consider placeholder text to be instructions (valuable information) and so we have been calling a violation on placeholder text that isn't 4.5 to 1 (assuming it isn't large). I see a great article by Steve Faulkner on this very subject at http://blog.paciellogroup.com/2011/02/html5-accessibility-chops-the-placeholder-attribute/ Now, the big question is, what do you say? Is color contrast of 4.5 to 1 required on regular size placeholder text to meet WCAG 2.0 SC 1.4.3?

Proposed Change:
Whatever you decide, could you add some notes to http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20140408/G148 so that in the future we will have more than just this question/answer to refer to? Merci!

Related issues: (space separated ids)

WG Notes: Addressed: http://www.w3.org/2014/08/05-wai-wcag-minutes.html @@ add a note to U1.4.3: Note 3: The minimum contrast success criterion (1.4.3) applies to text in the page, and placeholder text is text in the page. If used, placeholder text needs to provide sufficient contrast.

Resolution: Thank you for your question. The minimum contrast success crition (1.4.3) applies to text in the page, and placeholder text is text in the page. If used, placeholder text needs to provide sufficient contrast in order to avoid a 1.4.3 failure. We have also added a note to the Understanding 1.4.3 document to this effect.

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

Comment LC-2949: Not just charts and graphs

Commenter: Andrew Arch <andrew.arch@gmail.com> on behalf of AGIMO (archived message)

Context: Visual Presentation: Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.3

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:

Document: UW
Item Number: Understanding Success Criterion 1.4.3
Part of Item: Intent
Comment Type: technical
Summary of Issue: expansion of 'not just text'
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
the closing para in 'intent' mentions graphs and charts - other complex informative images such as diagrams and maps should also be mentioned.

Proposed Change:
"Data presented in charts and graphs ...", suggest saying "Data and information ... " and adding "diagrams" (and possibly "maps") to the list of other objects needing good contrast

Related issues: (space separated ids)

WG Notes:

Resolution: We have modified the final paragraph of this section to read: Although this Success Criterion only applies to text, similar issues occur for content presented in charts, graphs, diagrams, and other non-text-based information. Content presented in this manner also needs to have good contrast to ensure that more users can access the information.

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

Comment LC-2943: H69 is beyond requirement

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

Context: Bypass Blocks: Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.1

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:

Name: Makoto Ueki
Email: makoto.ueki@gmail.com
Affiliation:
Document: UW
Item Number: Understanding Success Criterion 2.4.1
Part of Item: Intent
Comment Type: general comment
Summary of Issue: H69 is beyond requirement
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
H69: Providing heading elements at the beginning of each section of content
http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20140408/H69

To meet SC 2.4.1, it is not necessarily required to provide h1-h6 element at the beginning of EACH section of content. The intent of SC 2.4.1 is "to allow people who navigate sequentially through content more direct access to the primary content of the Web page." as described in Understanding WCAG 2.0.

Though H69 can be one of the sufficient techniques, most people are misunderstanding that heading elements must be provided at each section of the page to meet SC 2.4.1.

Proposed Change:
To clarify this, new HTML technique like "Providing heading elements at the beginning of primary/main content" should be added to the list of sufficient techniques for SC 2.4.1.

Related issues: (space separated ids)

WG Notes: @@Add technique suggestion to technique list.

Resolution: Thank you for your comment. The working group agrees that having the additional technique would help users understand that the success criterion can be met in more than just the way indicated in H69. We will add this to our list of techniques to develop. However, we have a lot of techniques in that list, and it is a slow process to develop each one. You are welcome to develop the technique yourself and submit the technique to the WG for consideration. This may allow the technique to be published much sooner. See https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Technique_Instructions for guidance about developing techniques.

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