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

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

I accept that... let's tease that out in the understanding...add something
like "If the graphic is providing information that is already in text which
provides the essential information, then the requirement of the Success
Criteria has been met."

hmmm... I'm just kicking around the tires a bit here... forgive my
exploration out loud but ...

- if 1.1.1 requires text alternatives for graphics
-and 1.4.12 allows for text alternatives

Then it seems a little like a circle, wouldn't every graphic that passes
1.1.1 also pass 1.4.12 ... except that in 1.4.12 the text would have to be
visible rather than programmatically determinable.


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 10:29 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> > - 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?!).
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>