| Summary: | Unable to click calendar days that are not part of current month | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Plasma] plasmashell | Reporter: | social.bobsled816 |
| Component: | Digital Clock widget | Assignee: | Plasma Bugs List <plasma-bugs-null> |
| Status: | RESOLVED INTENTIONAL | ||
| Severity: | normal | CC: | akselmo, kde, m_louis30, nate, postix |
| Priority: | NOR | Keywords: | regression |
| Version First Reported In: | 6.4.1 | ||
| Target Milestone: | 1.0 | ||
| Platform: | Other | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Latest Commit: | Version Fixed/Implemented In: | ||
| Sentry Crash Report: | |||
|
Description
social.bobsled816
2025-06-29 14:32:17 UTC
This was caused by https://invent.kde.org/plasma/plasma-workspace/-/merge_requests/5614 I'm afraid this was an intentional change for accessibility made in Plasma 6.4.1. You see, if the days for other months have super light text but remain clickable, they don't achieve WCAG AA for text readability. However if we disable clickability for those days, then they aren't considered at all for WCAG purposes, so we pass. And passing this is important for https://invent.kde.org/plasma/plasma-desktop/-/issues/149#note_1237256 The change may be intentional, the bug remains. It acts unexpectedly and is a regression. There's lots of other solutions to explore.
As for the original change I don't think it's enough to begin with.
>Must have a contrast ratio of at least 7:1, except for the following:
>Incidental
> 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.
It's not an "inactive user interface component" just because it's not clickable. WCAG would apply to someone reading this comment in bugzilla which isn't clickable.
(In reply to David Edmundson from comment #3) > The change may be intentional, the bug remains. It acts unexpectedly and is > a regression. There's lots of other solutions to explore. > > As for the original change I don't think it's enough to begin with. > > >Must have a contrast ratio of at least 7:1, except for the following: > >Incidental > > 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. > > It's not an "inactive user interface component" just because it's not > clickable. WCAG would apply to someone reading this comment in bugzilla > which isn't clickable. It is; see https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/non-text-contrast.html under "Inactive User Interface Components". Some calendars use alternating background colours to identify months. Using black text on a darker background, or a lighter background for the current month, could solve the contrast issue without functionality loss. Closing again because the current UI is intentional and implemented the way it is for legal reasons. There are of course other potential legal solutions (like using different background colors for days outside of the current month) as long as those preserve adequate contrast if they're interactive. However, we currently don't use background colors here at all; it just inherits the background of the popup. So that would be a larger UI redesign. …Which is fine. I'm open to a UI redesign to make this even better. But that's somewhat outside the scope of a bug report. So there is a design flaw that, together with reading a law to the letter, leads to functionality loss. Where should the flawed design be reported, if not here? A new bug report to request a different design (e.g. background-based differentiation for days outside the current month) would be appropriate. I'm not against that, if we can make it look good. |