RE: Comment on use of the word "essential" in exception for 1.4.11

Yep, I get the difference between the 2 uses, but I think the exception should call out those types of things rather than create an “essential” umbrella.  Photos and colors of real life is an obvious example (which I thought was the point of the sensory exception – if not, seems easy to incorporate).

Steve

From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 6:25 PM
To: Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>; Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com>; public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Comment on use of the word "essential" in exception for 1.4.11

Hi Stephen,

If it helps separate the first use of “essential” from the second, the phrase “graphical objects that are essential for understanding” is intended to separate parts of graphics that are needed to discern the meaning, from those which are not.

Without that concept (however it is phrased), the SC becomes impossible to meet and very difficult to test.

The comment that lead to the last exception was regarding graphics used in learning material (and exams) for doctors, where pictures of people’s, um, insides are the way they have to be in life, you can’t just up the contrast on them.

That doesn’t seem to fit the ‘sensory’ exception, but does seem to need some way of being exempted.

Cheers,

-Alastair


From: Repsher, Stephen J [mailto:stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com]
Sent: 20 September 2017 22:44
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>; Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com<mailto:glenda.sims@deque.com>>; public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>>
Subject: RE: Comment on use of the word "essential" in exception for 1.4.11

I actually agree with the commenter in terms of the hole it opens, and would prefer we delete the “essential” exception in favor of listing specific things that should be exempt.  As Alastair said, it was added fairly late and I’m not sure a convincing argument was made for it to be worded as such or even be there.  (For example, logos are considered “essential in all other SC, so we wouldn’t need to repeat that).

If we absolutely must keep it in terms of “essential”, then we can clear it up by talking directly about color contrast as it relates to meaning and leave the rest out: “The contrast of the graphical object is essential for meaning.”.  Talking about presentation and information is fluff copied from other SC.

Note that copying from other SC also means editorial tweaks are needed for sensory and logos to talk about “graphical objects” instead of non-text content and graphics, respectively.

Steve

From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 5:16 PM
To: Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com<mailto:glenda.sims@deque.com>>; public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>>
Subject: RE: Comment on use of the word "essential" in exception for 1.4.11

Hi Glenda,

Sure, that exception was added relatively late in the process, and looking at it now, we shouldn’t use ‘essential’ in the main SC and again in the exception without explaining that better.

Your suggestion looks good to me, let’s use that unless someone else has an improvement…

Cheers,

-Alastair

From: Glenda Sims [mailto:glenda.sims@deque.com]
Sent: 20 September 2017 18:33
To: public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>>
Subject: Comment on use of the word "essential" in exception for 1.4.11

Hey Alastair,

I volunteered to work on a WCAG 2.1 comment/issue in github.  Specifically this one:  Andrew Kirkpatrick entered an issue in github based on a post made by Scott Hollier (concerns about the loophole of "essential").  You can see the issue here https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/150


I've been chatting with Scott Hollier about his confusion and ideas for improving the understandability of 1.4.11 Graphics Contrast.

Scott raised the following point:  The SC refers to "essential" but then turns around and has 'Essential" as an exception.  This double use of the word "essential" is confusing and at first may seem contradictory (to a newbie trying to understand it).  Scott worried that the "Essential" exception would become a GIANT loophole...that would allow all graphics to be exempt from the graphic contrast requirement.
Success Criterion 1.4.11 Graphics Contrast

The visual presentation of graphical objects that are essential for understanding the content or functionality have a contrast ratio<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-contrast-ratio> of at least 4.5:1 against the adjacent color(s), except for the following:
Thicker - For graphical objects with a minimum width and height of at least 3 CSS pixels, the graphic has a contrast ratio of at least 3:1;
Sensory - Non-text content that is primarily intended to create a visual sensory experience has no contrast requirement;
Logotypes - Graphics that are part of a logo or brand name have no minimum contrast requirement;
Essential - A particular presentation of the graphical is essential to the information being conveyed.
Based on Scott's questions/comments....I have a suggestion for you to consider.  Would it be worthwhile (make it more understandable) to change the wording of the Essential exception from:
·       Essential: A particular presentation of the graphical is essential to the information being conveyed.
to:
·       Essential Graphical Presentation Exception - A particular presentation of the graphical is essential to the information being conveyed and cannot be achieved in another way that would conform.

Or something along those lines?Just a thought,G
glenda sims  |   team a11y lead   |    deque.com<http://deque.com>    |    512.963.3773
web for everyone. web on everything. -  w3 goals

[Image removed by sender. IAAP International Association of Accessibility Professionals: Certified Professional in Accessibility Core Competencies (CPACC)]<http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/certification>