- From: Gregg Vanderheiden RTF <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 11:47:29 -0500
- To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Cc: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <3536950036100144637@unknownmsgid>
You don't need an exception. All info needs to meet the sc. but if info is displayed redundantly only one form needs to meet. Otherwise you couldn't use color etc Alt text would not be sufficient etc. Gregg On Feb 22, 2017, at 10:25 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote: The word "Proposed" on the SC should be sufficient way to provide the essential information that was conveyed by the orange box. I'd like to propose the additional exception (5th bullet) to SC 1.4.12 Graphical contrast, that would allow the orange boxes in the FPWD to pass the proposed SC 1.4.12. Something like - an alternative means of visually displaying the essential information is provided. (e.g., visible text) Cheers, David MacDonald *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.* Tel: 613.235.4902 LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> twitter.com/davidmacd GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> * Adapting the web to all users* * Including those with disabilities* If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 9:58 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote: > > Any concerns that the orange square for proposed SC does not meet > contrast requirements? > > > I think this is a good test for the new SC 1.4.12 Graphic contrast. How > would I evaluate this in an audit? > > - Is the box a graphic? > I'd say yes. > > - Is the box is "essential"? > I'd say yes, because it indicates that the section is a proposed SC. > > There is a non graphical alternative, the word "Proposed". But this > alternative way of presenting the essential information. There does not > appear to be a provision for a text alternative under this SC. There is no > exception where the important information is provided in another way such > as in text. > > So I don't know whether I'd pass this orange box or not... I'm leaning > toward "no".... but I think the word "proposed" is a sufficient means of > conveying the information and would like to see an exception for visual > presentation of the essential information in text > > > > Cheers, > David MacDonald > > > > *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.* > > Tel: 613.235.4902 <(613)%20235-4902> > > LinkedIn > <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> > > twitter.com/davidmacd > > GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> > > www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> > > > > * Adapting the web to all users* > * Including those with disabilities* > > If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy > <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html> > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com> > wrote: > >> Contrast (minimum) currently only appplies to text and images of text, so >> at the moment it does not apply. >> There are also textual cues and headings indicating when each criterion >> begins and ends. >> Best practice, yes, it should get bumped up. >> >> Michael Gower >> IBM Accessibility >> Research >> >> 1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC V8T 5C3 >> gowerm@ca.ibm.com >> voice: (250) 220-1146 * cel: (250) 661-0098 * fax: (250) 220-8034 >> >> >> >> From: Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com> >> To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, WCAG < >> w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> >> Date: 2017-02-22 05:55 AM >> Subject: Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> >> +1. Any concerns that the orange square for proposed SC does not meet >> contrast requirements? >> >> [image: Inline image] >> >> Mike >> >> >> On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 7:18 AM, "Makoto UEKI - Infoaxia, Inc." < >> makoto.ueki@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> +1 to publish >> >> >> Cheers, >> Makoto >> >> >> 2017-02-22 3:26 GMT+09:00 Andrew Kirkpatrick <*akirkpat@adobe.com* >> <akirkpat@adobe.com>>: >> > Call For Consensus — ends Thursday February 23th at 1:30pm Boston time. >> > >> > The Working Group discussed the latest editor’s draft of WCAG 2.1 >> > (*https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/FPWD_review/guidelines/index.html* >> <https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/FPWD_review/guidelines/index.html>) and >> > basedon a survey ( >> *https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21FWPD/results* >> <https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21FWPD/results>) >> > and a Working Group call ( >> *http://www.w3.org/2017/02/21-ag-minutes.html* >> <http://www.w3.org/2017/02/21-ag-minutes.html>) >> > where the majority of comments were >> > resolved and no blocking issues remained. >> > >> > On the call people believed that we had reached a consensus position >> that >> > the Working Group should publish the Editor's Draft as the First Publish >> > Working Draft (FPWD). This will allow the group to meet its charter >> > deadline. The Working Group included several SC that do not have Working >> > Group consensus, but the Working Group did have consensus that >> publishing >> > was valuable in order to get additional feedback from the public, and >> notes >> > were included in the draft to point out aspects that do not have >> consensus >> > at this time. >> > >> > If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have >> not >> > been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not >> being >> > able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before the >> CfC >> > deadline. >> > >> > Thanks, >> > AWK >> > >> > Andrew Kirkpatrick >> > Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility >> > Adobe >> > >> > *akirkpat@adobe.com* <akirkpat@adobe.com> >> > *http://twitter.com/awkawk* <http://twitter.com/awkawk> >> >> >> >> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2017 16:48:08 UTC