Re: 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

The word "Proposed" on the SC should be sufficient way to provide the
essential information that was conveyed by the orange box. ​I'd like to
propose the additional exception (5th bullet) to SC 1.4.12 Graphical
contrast, that would allow the orange boxes in the FPWD to pass the
proposed SC 1.4.12. Something like

​- ​
an alternative
​means of visually displaying
 the essential information
​ is provided. (e.g., visible 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 9:58 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

> > 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 <(613)%20235-4902>
>
> 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>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>