Include details on user interface components in 1.4.3 & 1.4.6 Understanding

[jnurthen]

1.4.11 includes
https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/non-text-contrast.html#inactive-controls

This same section should be included in the understanding documents for 1.4.3 and 1.4.6.
Alternatively the defintion for "Inactive user-interface components" could be placed in the glossary (but this would be a normative change)

[awkawk]

Seems reasonable, some sections will need to be edited for that (e.g. the backward compatibility item that references 1.4.3).

[mbgower]

Note that while I was investigating this, I noticed the use of "eg" in this section (my emphasis):

User Interface Components that are not available for user interaction (eg: a disabled control in HTML) are not required to meet contrast requirements in WCAG 2.1. An inactive user interface component is visible but not currently operable. Example: A submit button at the bottom of a form that is visible but cannot be activated until all the required fields in the form are completed.

That is a deviation from the standard style for the Latin exempli gratia abbreviation, which is "e.g.," as per Chicago style (which I think is what w3c follows; it happens in 28 of the Understanding docs).
I am going to do a PR that not only adds in the newer section to those respective Understanding docs, but also updates the abbreviation. I'm also going to remove the hyphen in "in-active" and the terminal punctuation in the figure caption (another Chicago convention), and generally clean up any style inconsistencies in the source doc so we don't just copy over things that need to be changed later in multiple sources.

[awkawk]

That's fine, but ideally the 100% editorial items would go in a separate pull request and Alastair or I would just merge it without further discussion (assuming only editorial changes)

[mbgower]

@jnurthen , I have a suggestion about how to proceed with this. The first paragraph and example in the section currently reads as follows:

Inactive User Interface Components

User Interface Components that are not available for user interaction (eg: a disabled control in HTML) are not required to meet contrast requirements in WCAG 2.1. An inactive user interface component is visible but not currently operable. Example: A submit button at the bottom of a form that is visible but cannot be activated until all the required fields in the form are completed.
[image of Grey button with non-contrasting grey text.]
An in-active button using default browser styles.

I am suggesting that " in WCAG 2.1" be removed from the first sentence. With my other changes, it would read as:

Inactive User Interface Components

User Interface Components that are not available for user interaction (e.g., a disabled control in HTML) are not required to meet contrast requirements. An inactive user interface component is visible but not currently operable. An example would be a submit button at the bottom of a form that is visible but cannot be activated until all the required fields in the form are completed.
[image of Grey button with non-contrasting grey text]
An inactive button using default browser styles

We could then add that to the two text Contrast SCs, but leave the rest of the information on inactive components only with 1.4.11, since it contains a rationale exclusive to 2.1 and the new Non-text Contrast SC.

[mbgower]

ideally the 100% editorial items would go in a separate pull request and Alastair or I would just merge it without further discussion (assuming only editorial changes)

Okay, let's be ideal :)
I'd already made the branch, so the name is now misleading, but the PR #491 I just created for the inactive-controls-info branch is wholly editorial. It does not involve the only change I have proposed to the existing Understanding doc (which was removing "in WCAG 2.1") to address Jame's concern.

Now that James has given the thumbs up to my approach, I will make those changes in a new branch which I will call, because I like sequels, inactive-conrols-info2

[mbgower]

Actually @awkawk I realized that since I created the new branch before this new PR is merged, it was going to get messy, so I just deleted my new inactive-conrols-info2 branch. Let me know when you've merged in the editorial stuff and I'll make another NEW branch :)

[awkawk]

OK, merged.

[alastc]

Hi @mbgower, did you create the inactive-conrols-info2 branch?

I think this is still an open question (i.e. adding the "Inactive user-interface components" to 1.4.3 and 1.4.6), just nudging...

[patrickhlauke]

just wondering...is this still outstanding? @alastc @mbgower

[mbgower]

Likely. It didn't get assigned to me, so wasn't coming up in my to do list!
I will assign it to myself and bring it up on Friday's call. I'd also like to get your changes in from #3020 before starting this, so as not to get in conflict.