Re: Graphics contrast

Hi Alastair, Erich, and all,

+1

Good to know that we 3 are in agreement. If the graphic conveys
something, then understanding that graphical content is part of the
task. Anyone not not interpret it that way? Do we need to be more
explicit in the definition?

We already say "If a graphic is needed to understand the content or
functionality of the webpage then it should be perceivable for people
with low vision or other impairments" in the SC description. We could
reiterate that sentiment again in a future Understanding SC Doc when
we get to that point.

Thank you.

Kindest Regards,
Laura

-- 
Laura L. Carlson


On 11/9/16, Erich Manser <emanser@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> “information the user may need to complete any action or task including an
> offline task.”
>
>                     Erich Manser
>
>                     IBM
>
>                     Accessibility,
>
>                     IBM Research
>
>                     Littleton,
>
>                     MA / tel:
>
>                     978-696-1810
>
>                     Search for
>
>                     accessibility
>
>                     answers
>
> You don't need eyesight to have vision.
>
> From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> To: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
> Cc: Erich Manser/Cambridge/IBM@IBMUS, LVTF - low-vision-a11y
>             <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
> Date: 11/09/2016 04:15 AM
> Subject: Re: Graphics contrast
>
>
>
> HI Laura,
>
>> I wonder if it would apply it to all of the graphical examples? [2].
>
> My interpretation has been that this would include understanding content:
> “information the user may need to complete any action or task including an
> offline task.”
>
> If the graphic is to convey something, then understanding that content is
> part of the task.
>
> If others don’t read it that way, then we might need something like:
> Important information: information the user may need to understand the
> content or complete an action or task…
>
> In which case it might be best to suggest that update to COGA rather than
> have a different definition of the same concept.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Alastair
-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Wednesday, 9 November 2016 12:59:24 UTC