- From: Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>
- Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 16:41:10 -0600
- To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
- Cc: public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CA+=z1W=X0H0sbJNa95b0TY4zTsb3tF=UEyb4-A0tV0X3wEBSeg@mail.gmail.com>
see below On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 5:59 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I just found a ton of (mostly passing?) infographics here: > https://www.flickr.com/photos/gdsdigital/ > > The copyright license is to allow sharing & reuse with attribution, so > it's a reasonable source for testing or publications so long as it's > attributed. > > It would be useful for a few people to look at a few and assess whether > they think they would pass non-text-contrast, but also: > - relying on colour > - text (in graphics) contrast > > Most infographics I've found fail one of the current WCAG 2.0 ones, adding > non-text-contrast isn't that big a deal overall. > > As a starter selection: > https://www.flickr.com/photos/gdsdigital/4729221809/in/datetaken/ blue circle and yellow-green circle - fail white circle and yellow-green circle - fail text covers the meaning of the graphics that fail. tho there are text contrast failures. > https://www.flickr.com/photos/gdsdigital/4719771789/in/datetaken/ pink and green - fail lite green and dark green - fail the text has the meaningful information. but it fail text contrast > > https://www.flickr.com/photos/gdsdigital/4645105776/in/datetaken/ beige and white - fail light beige and dark beige - fail there is enough meaninful text near the failing graphics that the graphics are redundant is this what you want? > > -Alastair > > -- Jim Allan, Accessibility Coordinator Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired 1100 W. 45th St., Austin, Texas 78756 voice 512.206.9315 fax: 512.206.9452 http://www.tsbvi.edu/ "We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." McLuhan, 1964
Received on Wednesday, 21 February 2018 22:41:36 UTC