Resolve "Text has minimum contrast" feedback

Question

Resolve "Text has minimum contrast" feedback

maryjom opened this issue 4 years ago · 5 comments

maryjom commented 4 years ago

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 #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 #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.

Answer 1 · 2020-09-24T12:37:00.000Z

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.

Answer 2 · 2020-10-09T11:50:58.000Z

Ready for another survey

Answer 3 · 2020-11-09T19:19:31.000Z

Survey closed on 29 October.

Answer 4 · 2020-11-11T04:19:49.000Z

Discussing survey results at 12 Nov. meeting.

Answer 5 · 2021-01-27T23:25:38.000Z

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?