- From: <josh@interaccess.ie>
- Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 13:18:55 +0000
- To: "Jonathan Avila" <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>, "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
------ Original Message ------ From: "Jonathan Avila" <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> [...] >> Interesting, I'd say that's a maybe. As looking at 1.4.3, I see F83 >>does call out that the the background image should provide sufficient >>colour contrast, a better fit. It still doesn't explicitly address the >>issue of legibility, that may not be due to contrast issues. > >SC 1.4.3 is what we have at the A/AA level to address this. Perhaps >readability is a topic for the next WCAG. Also of note, there has been >some discussion in the LVTF about the difference between legibility and >readability, etc. Cool - thanks for the heads up Jon. I think readability/legibility should be a topic for WCAG.next. Glad to hear the LVTF are looking at this. Josh > >Jonathan > > >-----Original Message----- >From: josh@interaccess.ie [mailto:josh@interaccess.ie] >Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 7:49 AM >To: Patrick H. Lauke; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org >Subject: Re[2]: SC for 'real' text over a busy background image > >Interesting, I'd say that's a maybe. As looking at 1.4.3, I see F83 >does call out that the the background image should provide sufficient >colour contrast, a better fit. It still doesn't explicitly address the >issue of legibility, that may not be due to contrast issues. >One of the LVTF, if they haven't started looking at this already. > >Thanks > >Josh > > >------ Original Message ------ >From: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk> >To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org >Sent: 10/05/2016 12:36:22 >Subject: Re: SC for 'real' text over a busy background image > >>On 10/05/2016 12:32, josh@interaccess.ie wrote: >>>I'm working with a client and finding text (real text) that is >>>displayed over a busy background image that obscures its legibility. >>>Currently I don't see a clear SC for this kind of problem and it >>>seems >>>to just sit somewhere under the principle that content must be >>>perceivable. The closest that I see is 1.4.5. >>>Am I missing something? >> >>1.4.3 ? >> >> >>-- Patrick H. Lauke >> >>www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke >>http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com >>twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke >> > >
Received on Tuesday, 10 May 2016 13:19:46 UTC