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

> - Is the box a graphic?

> I'd say yes.

I don’t believe so, for Graphics Contrast it would need to be: “A graphic or section of a graphic that represents a distinct object or sub-component with semantic meaning.”

It not a “distinct object”, it is a border around text (in the general rather than CSS sense of border), rather than something conveying its own meaning.

Side-note for Glenda: Presumably blocks of text do not constitute a “user interface component”?

Without the “interactive” term in the title, that’s less clear now, but not necessarily a problem.

> - Is the box is "essential"?

> I'd say yes, because it indicates that the section is a proposed SC.

I would say no, because:

> There is a non graphical alternative, the word "Proposed".

And then where you say:

> There does not appear to be a provision for a text alternative under this SC.

That’s part of the core SC, a graphic is not “essential for understanding” if there is a visible text alternative.

NB: There used to be an explicit exception for conforming alternates, but we had comments to take it out as it duplicates the core text.

Another sidenote: The CSS for the border is “width: medium”, which is >3px so if it were covered then 3:1 would be ok, which is: #CC8800 (murky brown?!).


Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2017 15:30:19 UTC