This is a great case for personalization. I think the graying out convention is a good one, the issue is what counts as grayed out versus full contrast, and that differs on an individual basis.
Cheers, Jan -- (Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc. [email protected] | 416-977-6000 ext. 3957 | fax: 416-977-9844 Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) | http://inclusivedesign.ca/ Faculty of Design | OCAD University From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hung Sent: October 13, 2010 10:17 AM To: Fluid Work; Michael S Elledge; E.J. Zufelt; Richards, Jan Subject: Re: Inactive UI components and WCAG 2 compliance Thanks Everett, Mike, and Jan! It seems that this situation is an example of a mismatch between an established convention and a user need. In this case, a user who requires high contrast to use a system is excluded from the same experience because "greying out" is the established practice. After some discussions here at the IDRC, I think this issue of high contrast disabled / inactive UI elements is something that can be addressed with Fluid UI Options. I have created a ticket to investigate, test, and implement a suitable approach to be used for UI Options. (See this issue: http://issues.fluidproject.org/browse/FLUID-3795). Going beyond the high contrast case, the fact that a UI element is disabled or inactive doesn't mean it shouldn't be accessible (which is the argument we're all making). If there is anyone interested in contributing designs or ideas to FLUID-3795, it's most welcome! Cheers, - Jonathan. --- Jonathan Hung / [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> IDRC - Interaction Designer / Researcher Fax: (416) 977-9844 On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Richards, Jan <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Jonathon, I think it means that the button text must meet the relevant contrast requirement when active (clickable), but is then exempt once it becomes inactive. My assumption is that they did this on purpose because "graying out" is a very common practice when things are inactive. Cheers, Jan -- (Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc. [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> | 416-977-6000 ext. 3957 | fax: 416-977-9844 Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) | http://inclusivedesign.ca/ Faculty of Design | OCAD University From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Jonathan Hung Sent: October 12, 2010 10:55 AM To: Richards, Jan Cc: Fluid Work; Gay, Greg Subject: Inactive UI components and WCAG 2 compliance Hi Jan, Greg and I were having a conversation in the IRC channel about WCAG compliance and inactive/disabled UI components. According to the WCAG guideline, it states: "Text or images of text that are part of an inactive user interface component, that are pure decoration, that are not visible to anyone, or that are part of a picture that contains significant other visual content, have no contrast requirement." (Reference: http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#visual-audio-contrast-contrast) In the context of a button that is active and then becomes inactive when activated (i.e. a Submit button that is enabled until pressed), how should we interpret this guideline? It seems the *act* of becoming inactive is significant (this merits contrast?), however, the guideline states that the contrast requirement doesn't apply to inactive components. How should we handle contrast styling in this case? - Jonathan. --- Jonathan Hung / [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> IDRC - Interaction Designer / Researcher Fax: (416) 977-9844
_______________________________________________________ fluid-work mailing list - [email protected] To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
