W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > October 2008

Re: "minimum" or "enhanced"?

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 13:09:13 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0810031309h62bfcc00o5d9ee96556062432@mail.gmail.com>
To: makoto.ueki@gmail.com
Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org

On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 3:22 PM, WCAG 2.0 Comment Form <nobody@w3.org> wrote:
>
>
> Name: Makoto Ueki
> Email: makoto.ueki@gmail.com
> Affiliation: JIS Working Group
> Document: W2
> Item Number: Success Criterion 1.4.6
> Part of Item:
> Comment Type: editorial
> Summary of Issue: "minimum" or "enhanced"?
> Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
> In the section of "Incidental", it reads "..., have no minimum contrast requirement". It should be "enhanced" instead of "minimum" as this is the SC for "Contrast (Enhanced)".
>
> Proposed Change:
> Change "..., have no minimum contrast requirement" to "..., have no enhanced contrast requirement".
>
>

================================
Response from the Working Group
================================
"Minimum" is correct in these parts of SC 1.4.6. Just as with SC
1.4.3, there is no minimum contrast requirement for text that occurs
in the situations described by the Incidental and Logotypes clauses.
So that text may have very poor contrast and still satisfy the success
criterion.

We have revised the second bullet of 1.4.3 and 1.4.6 as follows to clarify this:

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.


Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact


On behalf of the WCAG Working Group
Received on Friday, 3 October 2008 20:09:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 17 July 2011 06:13:26 GMT