W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org > November 2016

Re: Graphics contrast

From: Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 15:12:30 -0500
Message-ID: <CAH2ngESStbkxhbDiYUogDup5JTCSTSp6TfDuiQfE=1r0mhHC0Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: LVTF - low-vision-a11y <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Alastair,

I really like the phrase you suggested "Perhaps “that have an alternative
conforming version available from the same page”?"

That is exactly what I was thinking.  Do you think we should just go ahead
and add that in now?  And not hold it in our back pocket?  My instinct is
"add it now".  But I wanted to know what y'all think.

G

P.S.  Thanks for doing the research on the pixel width.  I'm feeling good
about our decision to use 3px.

glenda sims    |   team a11y lead   |    deque.com    |    512.963.3773


*web for everyone. web on everything.* -  w3 goals

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Glenda wrote:
>
> > And as a fall back position, we could add an option to provide an easily
> findable "good contrast version" of an info graphic...as an alternative.
>
>
>
> I was thinking that to, if you didn’t pick that meaning up from the
> ‘incidental’ part, can you think of a modification to the “*that have the
> same information elsewhere on the same page*” part of it to help?
>
> ------------
>
> • Incidental: Graphical elements that are not required for the
> understanding of the graphic, that are pure decoration*, that have the
> same information elsewhere on the same page* have no contrast requirement;
>
> ------------
>
>
>
> Perhaps “that have an alternative conforming version available from the
> same page”?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
Received on Friday, 4 November 2016 20:13:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:23:23 UTC