W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2017

Re: Varied answers Re: Color Contrast (Minimum) Level AA requirement for "Photography" image

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 18:38:44 +0000
To: Chaals McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex.ru>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <538F7F92-FA2C-484D-8BA6-F652972F4EBE@adobe.com>
I don’t think that this was pointed out but in the definition of “image of text” there is an indication that the image you showed as an example is not an image of text, but an image of a brochure that happens to have some text along with other content.

The definition of "image of text”:
"text that has been rendered in a non-text form (e.g., an image) in order to achieve a particular visual effect
"This does not include text that is part of a picture that contains significant other visual content.
"A person's name on a nametag in a photograph."

As a result, I agree that there should be equivalent alternative text available for the image and having text on the page that provides the same information is needed if the user is expected to take action based on the content of that text.


Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility


On 9/29/17, 08:02, "Chaals McCathie Nevile" <chaals@yandex.ru> wrote:

>I have now seen three different apparently different replies, based on  
>three different *assumptions* (or apparent assumptions) about how the  
>image is being used.
>One thing this makes clear is that context is important - the way you are  
>using this image has a significant impact on what you need to do to ensure  
>accessibility. Providing a version of the page in which the image was used  
>might have been more helpful in getting consistent answers.
>The differences in suggestions for "alt text" are entirely due to the  
>different assumptions about the use of the image - each explanation makes  
>sense for the underlying assumptions.
>Looking beyond the differences, there are some common parts to the answer.  
>Richard, Patrick and I all note, in different words, that if you want the  
>text that is in the image to be accessible, you should ideally put it on  
>the page *as text*, whether additional to the graphic or replacing the  
>graphic with its background image. And as Richard notes, you may want to  
>keep the brochure image with its text to help recognition of the physical  
>(more below)
>On Fri, 29 Sep 2017 11:10:24 +0200, Userite <richard@userite.com> wrote:
>> The image that you are using is a photo of a brochure that exists in the 
>> physical world. You do not need to make any changes to the image as it  
>> shows thereal thing.  You DO NOT need to change the image at all to make  
>> itaccessible.  What you do need to do is include an alternative text 
>> attribute to the code that loads the image so that makes the photo  
>> accessible.
>> A suitable text alternative would be “Summer Caribbean holiday 
>> brochure”.  The fact that the brochure text is not complying with the 
>> guideline is not relevant in this case.  You are showing your visitor  
>> whatthe brochure looks like so they can recognise it in a shop.  The  
>> image isnot being used to present textual information.  You should write  
>> the texton the brochure elsewhere on the page if you want users to know  
>> what thebrochure text says.
>> Guideline 1.4.3 refers to when you make an image of text that you then  
>> wantto use to impart information.  For example if I want to have a fancy 
>> “Welcome” message at the top of my page then I can make an image of the  
>> word“Welcome” using Photoshop with some really exciting font effects.   
>> In thiscase I need to employ good colour contrast because I want the  
>> visitor to be ableto read the message and feel welcome.   What your  
>> image is showing isa brochure, not textual information.
>> Remember that the guidelines are just guidelines.  You need to make a 
>> value judgement as to what guideline is relevant.
>To the extent that WCAG is written well, it is a technical specification,  
>and the success criteria are in fact requirements that need to be met if  
>you are going to ensure your content is accessible.
>Like most technical specifications, it is not perfect - and like most  
>technical specifications it is fair to expect the next version, which is  
>under development, will be better but also not perfect.
>> To do this you shouldread and understand the supporting documentation.   
>> If you go to  
>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2F2005%2FWD-UNDERSTANDING-&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ce7242a1ea93f4402027308d50732b3a8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636422836700910299&sdata=%2BkCvSKS2VkVkGO9okolX9RPguqj3XDxMCU5fpAa4Ybk%3D&reserved=0>WCAG20-20051123/Overview.html#visual-audio-contrast10 
>> for information about 1.4.3 and you will see that it is not relevant in  
>> yourcase.
>I'm not sure that I would draw that conclusion, since I don't have enough  
>context to clearly judge the case. But I agree that it is important to  
>look at the supporting documentation - and even more importantly to think,  
>and consider what is happening when a user is faced with the content you  
>Chaals is Charles McCathie Nevile
>find more at https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fyandex.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ce7242a1ea93f4402027308d50732b3a8%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636422836700910299&sdata=l%2FTe121qxMbjVIHyQ%2FosOKKsz2lXX8GBKQwLyl6ECiE%3D&reserved=0

Received on Friday, 29 September 2017 18:39:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 29 September 2017 18:39:12 UTC