Re: Graphics contrast

Alastair,

I agree with Laura and adding the "alternative version" info...I think that
will make this SC palatable for all.  Do you think we should edit the
current wording on Incidental images, or add a new "alternative version"
statement.


   - 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;

could become

   - 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 or that have an alternative
   conforming version available from the same page have no contrast
   requirement;


Or, do we leave incidental as is...and add:

   - High Contrast Alternative Available - Informational graphics that do
   not meet minimum color contrast have an alternative conforming version
   available from the same page.

I'm leaning towards leaving "Incidental" as is...and adding "High Contrast
Alternative Available".  But I don't feel super strongly about it...and
think that I want to see which way you are leaning Alastair.  Since you've
made the most recent edits :)

G

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


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

On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 3:26 PM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>