Should the boxes around blocks of text in the FPWD have Sufficient contrast under the new SC. WAS: Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD

> Any concerns that the orange square for proposed SC does not meet
contrast requirements?


I think this is a good test for the new SC 1.4.12 Graphic contrast. How
would I evaluate this in an audit?

- Is the box a graphic?
I'd say yes.

- Is the box is "essential"?
I'd say yes, because it indicates that the section is a proposed SC.

There is a non graphical alternative, the word "Proposed". But this
alternative way of presenting the essential information. There does not
appear to be a provision for a text alternative  under this SC. There is no
exception where the important information is provided in another way such
as in text.

So I don't know whether I'd pass this orange box or not... I'm leaning
toward "no".... but I think the word "proposed" is a sufficient means of
conveying the information and would like to see an exception for visual
presentation of the essential information in text



Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>
wrote:

> Contrast (minimum) currently only appplies to text and images of text, so
> at the moment it does not apply.
> There are also textual cues and headings indicating when each criterion
> begins and ends.
> Best practice, yes, it should get bumped up.
>
> Michael Gower
> IBM Accessibility
> Research
>
> 1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC  V8T 5C3
> gowerm@ca.ibm.com
> voice: (250) 220-1146 * cel: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034
>
>
>
> From:        Mike Elledge <melledge@yahoo.com>
> To:        Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>, WCAG <
> w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Date:        2017-02-22 05:55 AM
> Subject:        Re: CFC: Publish WCAG 2.1 FPWD
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> +1. Any concerns that the orange square for proposed SC does not meet
> contrast requirements?
>
> [image: Inline image]
>
> Mike
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 22, 2017 7:18 AM, "Makoto UEKI - Infoaxia, Inc." <
> makoto.ueki@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> +1 to publish
>
>
> Cheers,
> Makoto
>
>
> 2017-02-22 3:26 GMT+09:00 Andrew Kirkpatrick <*akirkpat@adobe.com*
> <akirkpat@adobe.com>>:
> > Call For Consensus — ends Thursday February 23th at 1:30pm Boston time.
> >
> > The Working Group discussed the latest editor’s draft of WCAG 2.1
> > (*https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/FPWD_review/guidelines/index.html*
> <https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/FPWD_review/guidelines/index.html>) and
> > basedon a survey (
> *https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21FWPD/results*
> <https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/WCAG21FWPD/results>)
> > and a Working Group call (*http://www.w3.org/2017/02/21-ag-minutes.html*
> <http://www.w3.org/2017/02/21-ag-minutes.html>)
> > where the majority of comments were
> > resolved and no blocking issues remained.
> >
> > On the call people believed that we had reached a consensus position that
> > the Working Group should publish the Editor's Draft as the First Publish
> > Working Draft (FPWD). This will allow the group to meet its charter
> > deadline. The Working Group included several SC that do not have Working
> > Group consensus, but the Working Group did have consensus that publishing
> > was valuable in order to get additional feedback from the public, and
> notes
> > were included in the draft to point out aspects that do not have
> consensus
> > at this time.
> >
> > If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not
> > been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not
> being
> > able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before the
> CfC
> > deadline.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > AWK
> >
> > Andrew Kirkpatrick
> > Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
> > Adobe
> >
> > *akirkpat@adobe.com* <akirkpat@adobe.com>
> > *http://twitter.com/awkawk* <http://twitter.com/awkawk>
>
>
>
>
>