- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 15:26:15 -0500
- To: Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
- Cc: LVTF - low-vision-a11y <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Hi Alastair and Glenda, I think your instinct is right, Glenda. Add the phrase now. We can always take it out later, if needed. Thanks! Kindest Regards, Laura On 11/4/16, Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com> wrote: > 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 >> > -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Friday, 4 November 2016 20:26:48 UTC