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

Resolve "Text has minimum contrast" feedback #485

Open
4 of 8 tasks
maryjom opened this issue Sep 24, 2020 · 5 comments
Open
4 of 8 tasks

Resolve "Text has minimum contrast" feedback #485

maryjom opened this issue Sep 24, 2020 · 5 comments
Assignees

Comments

@maryjom
Copy link
Collaborator

maryjom commented Sep 24, 2020

link to the survey results
This survey was discussed twice in meetings on:

Kathy Eng

  • I don't think 1.4.6 should be included since it requires minimum 7:1 (4.5:1 for large text) because the passing examples 2,3,4,5,6 would not pass.
  • Passed Clarify what we mean by negative tests #7: Perhaps "Sample of Helvetica font" might be better than "quick brown fox..."? Either way, not certain this is "non-text content" and that aria-hidden should be true.
  • Passed Clarify proof of compliance with absence of violation #8: Add "Note: Because this is non-text content, success criterion 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast requires font example to have a color contrast of 3:1." Contrast ratio is 3.6:1.
  • I don't think this rule tests 1.4.6 adequately

Detlev Fischer

  • Not sure about Passed Example 7:
    The example sentence won‘t show the aesthetics for LV users if the font if contrast is too low. So I would argue the sentence carries Information.

Wilco Fiers

  • Not a blocker, but I wonder if we should recommend the not-a-widget part should be taken out?
  • Remove the techniques from the mapping.

Mary Jo Mueller

  • Not sure if all rules are continuing to have techniques listed in the mapping or not. If not, they should be removed.
@WilcoFiers
Copy link
Collaborator

Resolved everything except the question about the mapping to 1.4.6. I have a pull request to resolve that too: act-rules/act-rules.github.io#1460 Once that's merged, I think we can put this into final call. Don't think this needs another review round.

@WilcoFiers WilcoFiers self-assigned this Oct 1, 2020
@WilcoFiers
Copy link
Collaborator

Ready for another survey

@maryjom
Copy link
Collaborator Author

maryjom commented Nov 9, 2020

Survey closed on 29 October.

@maryjom
Copy link
Collaborator Author

maryjom commented Nov 11, 2020

Discussing survey results at 12 Nov. meeting.

@maryjom
Copy link
Collaborator Author

maryjom commented Jan 27, 2021

Discussed survey results at 12 Nov. meeting.

Kathy Eng

  • Rule assumptions: 1.4.6 is not mentioned
  • Because 1.4.3 is AA and 1.4.6 is AAA, the implementations would be clearer if these to be 2 separate rules. Combining both in this rule may cause confusion on the passed implementations for readers (probably not for automated tools) since some fail 1.4.6.
  • Similar situation exists for 1.2.3 (A), 1.2.5 (AA), and 1.2.8 (AAA). Combining all of these would be very confusing and this rule seems to set a precedence for combining them.
  • Expectation only describes 1.4.3. Consider a separate rule for 1.4.6.

Mary Jo Mueller

  • The assumptions are actually the same for both 1.4.3 AND 1.4.6, so I don't think that the specific criterion of 1.4.3 needs to be called out.
  • Data looks correct, but so far we don't have any full implementations which blocks the rule from progressing through the process. There are some untested rules for SortSite and their tool passed Failed example 6. QualWeb also had a few inconsistent results, including Failed example 6. Is the shadow DOM something that automated tools cannot test? Or do these tools need updates to get the anticipated results?
  • I'm assuming that this would be one atomic rule for 1.4.6 and another atomic rule would check the more stringent requirement in 1.4.6 - which renders mapping of 1.4.6 to this rule a bit moot. Why have 2 rules for 1.4.6 when you can have one?

Wilco Fiers

  • We need to get at least 1 complete implementation. This rule will need to go on hold until we do.

Levon Spradlin

  • I'm not sure what implementation data is lacking.

Trevor Bostic

  • For inapplicable example 3, is there a reason to have the "aria-hidden='true'" attribute included? I think it confuses the point. I wonder if it would also be more clear if the description referenced the assumption as to why this counts as inapplicable. I am almost certain we had this discussion but I can't remember the reasoning. Why do we not consider text nodes that have ancestors with widget roles?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants