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

Essential is a normative part of the WCAG 2.0 definition.  I agree that it
takes more thought to determine if something is essential or not.

My simple test is to just ask this, when a client says to me, "Oh, that is
not essential.".  I say, "Cool.  Then can you remove it from the page?"  At
that point, the client's eyes usually pop wide open...they stammer and say,
", it is really helpful."

To which I reply, "So, it is essential.  Now let's figure out how to make
it accessible to all.  I'm sure we can come up with a universal design
solution...if we just think creatively!"

So...yes, we might need to get hyper creative for complex graphics (like
you might find in Tufte's "Visual Display of Quantitative Information" or
the deliciousness that is David McCandless' Information is Beautiful )

So...with the idea...that a picture truly is worth a thousand words, you
can't just dismiss a data visualization as non-essential just because you
threw a mountain of data at me.  It is the data viz that makes the data
make sense!

Elegant solution - designers can code version 1 of the data viz in any
colors they want.  Doesn't even need to meet color contrast, as long
as...there is a version of the data viz that does meet color contrast that
is available.  My thought pattern...perhaps the designers will embrace the
color contrast challenge and discover that the color contrast version is
the only version they want to make...because it is better (you know...the
whole "make it work for everyone from the start" kind of awesome.)

Yes, I'm respectful of the fact that designers may want to choose to post 2
versions of a data viz (one with less than ideal color contrast and one
without)....I don't ever want to be the girl that took the color choices
away from a designer.


glenda sims    |   team a11y lead   |    |    512.963.3773

*web for everyone. web on everything.* -  w3 goals

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 9:31 AM, White, Jason J <> wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alastair Campbell []
> > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 10:05 AM
> > I would separate "X is essential to Y', from "essential" in the more
> general sense.
> >
> > At one end of the scale, this is quite specific:
> > "graphical objects that are essential for understanding"
> >
> > It is about an attribute of the content, not the user's goal or the
> pages's
> > purpose.
> > ‚Äč
> > For me, it gets shakey is when you have to make assumptions about what
> the
> > user (or site owner?) thinks is essential for that page. (Which Jason
> covered so I
> > won't expound on that.)
> [Jason] This is the right distinction to draw. I think "essential to an
> activity", when used as an exception to a requirement, is defensible in
> that it only applies to content that has a single, clear purpose which
> would be undermined by the requirement. For example, timing may be
> essential to certain activities, but the exception only applies where there
> is an unambiguous, intended purpose.
> For the reasons that we've discussed, I think broader uses of "essential",
> "critical", and similar terms are highly problematic.
> ________________________________
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
> Thank you for your compliance.
> ________________________________

Received on Thursday, 23 February 2017 17:43:49 UTC