W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2016

RE: Graphics contrast - critical principle

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bailey@Access-Board.gov>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 16:31:51 +0000
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
CC: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CY1PR08MB13096AD5E22A489743246F8FE3840@CY1PR08MB1309.namprd08.prod.outlook.com>
The SC draft text I am commenting on is here:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Informational_Graphic_Contrast_(Minimum)

> I’m not sure that VR counts as a type of image, surely it is a different view (i.e. spherical) of the same types of image we can put on screen?
> I think we need to consider VR a monitor alternative that could contain many types of content, and this SC should focus on the content.

I am thinking of VR more as a content type, not so much the hardware.  Second Life from ten years ago counts as VR as far as I am concerned, but I am happy to adjust my terminology if you like.

> I’m also not entirely happy with “captures”, but I couldn’t think of anything else to differentiate images that are captured from the real world, from graphics created to convey information. I was hoping the subtle and un-defined term ‘captures’ would just be a clue!

It has been drilled into me that headings should use words that appear in the body text.  I think there is agreement that paintings should be covered by the exception, and they are not captures from the real world.  Is the SC only applicable to static images?  I was expecting the exception to be more like this:

Sensory:  Non-text content that is primarily intended to create a visual sensory experience has no minimum contrast requirement.

> I think we need to define the unit of testing, there needs to be some element on the screen that has to be seen & discerned separately from other elements in order to be understood. 

I understand, but I think we may be able to do that without introducing a glossary entry.  Not that new glossary terms are necessarily bad, but this one just does not seem fully baked to me.

> I’ll see if we can either use, reference or reform that for use instead of ‘graphical element’, but I’m not sure if it quite maps yet.

That would be better IMHO, but there might also be better terms of art for the types of content we mean to address.
Received on Thursday, 8 December 2016 16:32:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:07 UTC