Re: Graphics contrast - critical principle

Hi Alastair,

I think it may work. Are there any use cases that the definition
wouldn't cover for our SC? I can't think of any off hand but we should
be sure the scope covers what we need.

Thanks.

Kindest Regards,
Laura

On 12/8/16, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote:
> Interesting for the graphics SCs: I saw the graphics-aria-1.0 spec was just
> approved, which has definitions of graphics-document, graphics-object, and
> graphics-symbol:
> https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-graphics-aam-1.0-20160908/#role-mapping-table
>
>
> We could look at aligning the graphics definitions with those?
>
> I think the most suitable for ‘graphics element’ would be ‘graphics-symbol’,
> which is:
> “A graphical object used to convey a simple meaning or category, where the
> meaning is more important than the particular visual appearance. It may be a
> component of a larger structured graphic such as a chart or map. The symbol
> itself is an atomic object; children are presentational.”
>
> The usage for ARIA appears to be for SVG type graphics which have separate
> elements for different bits of the ‘graphic document’. What constitutes an
> ‘element’ seems to between graphics-object and graphics-symbol.
>
> I know one of the authors, is it worth me getting some background to see if
> it is suitable?
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Alastair
>
>
> On 06/12/2016, 20:08, "Laura Carlson" <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     Hi Alastair and all,
>
>     I agree, Alastair, the heart of the Informational Graphic Contrast
>     Issue [1] is that the test should be: For each element of a graphic
>     required for understanding, it is discernible.
>
>     Does anyone not agree with that?
>
>     However, as James and Glenda pointed here on the list, examples that
>     involve text should be covered with 1.4.3. In addition we should
>     probably change the image in issue 9 [1] showing the 24px (large) text
>     to an image that doesn't use text. Josh pointed out in the survey [2]
>     that can be confusing too.
>
>     Kindest Regards,
>     Laura
>
>     [1] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/9
>     [2] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/results#xq2
>
>
>     On 12/6/16, Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com> wrote:
>     > Alastair, c: James et al
>     >
>     > I love this!  But James has a good point, I think example 2 needs to
> focus
>     > on the color contrast between meaning non-text items.
>     >
>     > So...you can make reference to the grey text on the different colors
> (but
>     > say that is out of scope for this SC...because it is covered by 1.4.3
> ).
>     >
>     > Then...in Example two..compare the color contrast for:
>     >
>     >    1. 46% ORANGE pie slice against PURPLE pie slice
>     >    2. 24% PURPLE pie slice against RED pie slice
>     >    3. 20.4% RED pie slice against GREEN pie slice
>     >    4. 5.1% GREEN pie slice against ORANGE pie slice
>     >    5. 1.3% PURPLE pie slice against ORANGE pie slice
>     >
>     > I see you've got interesting things going on with borders on the pie
> slices
>     > (I bet to help with color contrast).  I didn't list all the
> combinations
>     > that are really being tested for each pie slice...because there is
>     > "overlap"...but for clarity it might be worth listing every one.
>     >
>     > What do you think?
>     > G
>     >
>     > glenda sims    |   team a11y lead   |    deque.com    |
> 512.963.3773
>     >
>     >
>     > *web for everyone. web on everything.* -  w3 goals
>     >
>     > On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 11:39 AM, James Nurthen
> <james.nurthen@oracle.com>
>     > wrote:
>     >
>     >> Alistair,
>     >>
>     >> Example 2 in here is really confusing me.  Can you explain how this
>     >> differs from 1.4.3 as I believe the text in this image is already
> covered
>     >> by WCAG.
>     >>
>     >> Regards,
>     >>
>     >> James
>     >>
>     >> On 12/5/2016 6:58 AM, Alastair Campbell wrote:
>     >>
>     >> Hi everyone,
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> Thanks for all the feedback on Information graphics contrast [1, 2].
>     >> There
>     >> is one principle involved, which if agreed, means we can refine the
>     >> wording
>     >> and continue.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> Several people noted the difficulty with testing contrast on complex
>     >> graphics which have multiple colours, which is true on the face of
> it.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> I think there is a reasonable way to approach this, which I tested
> by
>     >> presenting it to 8 people in our design team. They didn’t go pale or
> get
>     >> angry, and after a couple of examples it seemed quite reasonable.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> We obviously haven’t conveyed it in the SC text well enough yet, but
> if a
>     >> few of the respondents could read this and think through the
> objections,
>     >> I
>     >> think we can clear that stumbling block:
>     >>
>     >> https://alastairc.ac/tests/graphics-contrast-explanation.html
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> The nub of it is that the test should be: *For each element of a
> graphic
>     >> required for understanding, it is discernible.*
>     >>
>     >> That is very different from contrast-testing every combination of
>     >> elements, and IMHO much more feasible.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> In that page I work through a couple of the examples to show what’s
>     >> needed. It is also worth noting that the current “1.4.1 Use of
> Color“
>     >> catches most current “difficult” examples, the contrast aspect would
> help
>     >> catch the remaining ones.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> I’ve worked through a dozen examples [3], I’m happy to tackle more
> so
>     >> long
>     >> as they pass the color-alone SC and are different from ones I’ve
> already
>     >> done.
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> Kind regards,
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> -Alastair
>     >>
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> 1] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/9
>     >>
>     >> 2] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/NewSC_20161122/results#xq2
>     >>
>     >> 3] https://alastairc.ac/tests/graphic-contrast-test.html
>     >>
>     >>
>     >> --
>     >> Regards, James
>     >>
>     >> [image: Oracle] <http://www.oracle.com>
>     >> James Nurthen | Principal Engineer, Accessibility
>     >> Phone: +1 650 506 6781 <+1%20650%20506%206781> | Mobile: +1 415 987
> 1918
>     >> <+1%20415%20987%201918> | Video: james.nurthen@oracle.com
>     >> Oracle Corporate Architecture
>     >> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood Cty, CA 94065
>     >> [image: Green Oracle] <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is
>     >> committed to developing practices and products that help protect the
>     >> environment
>     >>
>     >
>
>
>     --
>     Laura L. Carlson
>
>
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Thursday, 8 December 2016 13:56:02 UTC