Inactive UI components and WCAG 2 compliance

Richards, Jan jrichards at ocad.ca
Wed Oct 13 14:29:16 UTC 2010


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.
jrichards at ocad.ca | 416-977-6000 ext. 3957 | fax: 416-977-9844
Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) | http://inclusivedesign.ca/
Faculty of Design | OCAD University

From: jhung.utoronto at gmail.com [mailto:jhung.utoronto at gmail.com] 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 / jhung at ocad.ca<mailto:jhung.utoronto at gmail.com>
IDRC - Interaction Designer / Researcher
Fax: (416) 977-9844


On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Richards, Jan <jrichards at ocad.ca<mailto:jrichards at ocad.ca>> 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.
jrichards at ocad.ca<mailto:jrichards at ocad.ca> | 416-977-6000 ext. 3957 | fax: 416-977-9844
Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) | http://inclusivedesign.ca/
Faculty of Design | OCAD University

From: jhung.utoronto at gmail.com<mailto:jhung.utoronto at gmail.com> [mailto:jhung.utoronto at gmail.com<mailto:jhung.utoronto at gmail.com>] 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 / jhung at ocad.ca<mailto:jhung.utoronto at gmail.com>
IDRC - Interaction Designer / Researcher
Fax: (416) 977-9844

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://fluidproject.org/pipermail/fluid-work/attachments/20101013/72a603e5/attachment.html>


More information about the fluid-work mailing list