Re: Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)

1.4.3 already applies to icons.

The term text is defined to be:

sequence of characters that can be programmatically determined
<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#programmaticallydetermineddef>, where the
sequence is expressing something in human language
<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#human-langdef>.
Now, ten years past icons would not fit into this description, but today we
have true iconic text: the search glass, trash can, tool wheel, attachment
paper clip, close window x, minimize underscore, maximize box, house for
homepage, hamburger for menu etc. We can easily develop an alphabet of
programmatically deterministic icon symbols that are in common use today,
and it is large.

A sequence can include only one element, like the number 1, or an icon used
for programmatically deterministic linguistic purpose. Therefore, a lot of
the icons we see today are in fact text. They may not have been text when
1.4.3 was formulated, but they are now. Technology changes. The reason this
was overlooked at the time is because standard uses of icons had not
coalescing so definitively 2008. Mobile devices had a lot to do with this
with their standardization to fill the need to save space.  What we have
today is an icon language that needs to be treated like what it is, well
defined symbols that convey human language.




On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 4:37 PM, John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com> wrote:

> …and yet, as we’ve seen already on this thread, increasing contrast
> negatively affects other user-groups (COGA), which effectively leaves us
> with a real dilemma: how do we address the needs of both groups? Can it be
> done simultaneously? Is color contrast issues an outlier here, or do we
> envision other emergent SC that may cause the same or similar discrepancies?
>
>
>
> Off the top of my head, I could perhaps envision a new Success Criteria
> that says something along the lines of “Page Content [sic] MUST allow the
> end user to adjust contrast between the ranges of ___ (whatever is a
> reasonable low-end for COGA needs) and ___ (whatever is a reasonable
> high-end for LV, etc.)”  - in other words mandating customization-ability
> of the page/site in question. One possible Technique would be to offer the
> end user the ability to select a “skin” or color scheme upon first visit
> (with perhaps setting a cookie to remember the user’s choice?...  I don’t
> know, I’m thinking out loud here…)
>
>
>
> What I would certainly bristle at however would be something along the
> lines of:
>
> SC 1.4.3 (and/or)
>
> SC 1.4.3.1LV (and/or)
>
> SC 1.4.3.2COGA  (and/or)
> SC 1.4.3.3MOBILE
>
>
>
> …that to me is a recipe for confusion and non-adoption.
>
> (Slightly off-tangent – for a thread already way off tangent – I **could**
> envision “extending” SC 1.4.3 to cover icons and other key actionable
> graphics on a page, which is currently not covered at all by WCAG 2.0: now *
> *THAT** I could see as a SC 1.4.3.1 sub-set/sub-section)
>
>
>
> JF
>
>
>
> *From:* Léonie Watson [mailto:tink@tink.uk]
> *Sent:* Monday, February 22, 2016 4:17 PM
> *To:* 'John Foliot' <john.foliot@deque.com>; 'Katie Haritos-Shea' <
> ryladog@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* 'David MacDonald' <david100@sympatico.ca>; 'CAE-Vanderhe' <
> gregg@raisingthefloor.org>; 'Jason J White' <jjwhite@ets.org>; 'Sailesh
> Panchang' <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>; 'Andrew Kirkpatrick' <
> akirkpat@adobe.com>; 'GLWAI Guidelines WG org' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject:* RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2
>
>
>
> *From:* John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com <john.foliot@deque.com>]
>
> *Sent:* 22 February 2016 19:20
> "The fact that a TF that is looking specifically at issues related to Low
> Vision users (or Cognitive users, or Mobile users – which sort of is
> everybody) helps bring focus to those types of needs, and ensures that the
> next-gen WCAG addresses shortcomings that specifically affects that group,
> but I will suggest that increasing the contrast requirements [sic] will
> benefit not only LV users, but perhaps Mobile users and Seniors as well, so
> making it a “Low Vision” Success Criteria in name feels (to me) wrong."
>
>
>
> +1
>
>
>
> I think it will also cause confusion. The 2.0 SC is intended to provide
> sufficient contrast for people with low vision. If an extension SC provides
> a better recommendation, it will effectively render the original SC
> obsolete.
>
>
>
> Updating guidance is progress and is a good thing (in many respects it's
> already long overdue), but trying to have conflicting SC exist in the same
> time/space seems like we're asking for trouble.
>
>
>
> Léonie.
>
>
>
> --
>
> @LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem
>
>
>
>
>