RE: What can I do, you may ask?

Hmm, same explanation is odd for 1.1.1 vs. PDF, so also here 3) could be used BUT how to judge a non-tagged PDF when it is seen as a graphical object?

SC 1.4.3 demands 4.5:1 and SC 1.4.11 demands 3:1 for the same (non) text …?!

(or do we need to “forbid” people to see non-tagged PDFs as graphical objects / non-text content??!!)


From: Abma, J.D. (Jake)
Sent: dinsdag 16 januari 2018 9:48
To: 'Glenda Sims' <glenda.sims@deque.com>; Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: RE: What can I do, you may ask?

My two cents…


  1.  Graphics and User Interface Components Contrast” (Too long?)
=> Don’t think “too long” is a good enough reason not to be fully clear on what we’re trying to express


  1.  “Graphics and Component Contrast”
=> we use and have a definition for the term UIC (User Interface Component) so if we mean that term, we should use it, otherwise what do we mean with “Component” as stand-alone term? may cause incomprehensibility.


  1.  “Non-Text Contrast”

=> This is an interesting one…!!! Not sure how it’s done all over the world BUT 1.1.1 is used by the Accessibility Foundation (and I’ve seen others do the same) to fail non-tagged PDF’s. As PDFs are PostScript like files they’re seen as Non-Text content. Using the term “Non-Text Contrast” and applying it to the text of the PDF is technically explainable but also odd.

For these reasons I lean towards 1) Graphics and User Interface Components Contrast”

From: Glenda Sims [mailto:glenda.sims@deque.com]
Sent: maandag 15 januari 2018 22:22
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>
Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: What can I do, you may ask?

Alastair,


  1.  Graphics and User Interface Components Contrast” (Too long?)
  2.  “Graphics and Component Contrast”
  3.  “Non-Text Contrast”

I could live with any of these.  To be in harmony with WCAG 2.0...I lean toward 3)  "Non-Text Contrast".

G

glenda sims  |   team a11y lead   |    deque.com<http://deque.com>    |    512.963.3773
*web for everyone. web on everything.* -  w3 goals

[IAAP International Association of Accessibility Professionals: Certified Professional in Accessibility Core Competencies (CPACC)]<http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/certification>


On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 4:16 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>> wrote:
I’ve drafted these:
282
411
649
680
686

For 616, it is about the title of “Graphics contrast” not covering UI components.
Alternative suggestions are:


  1.  “Graphics and User Interface Components Contrast” (Too long?)
  2.  “Graphics and Component Contrast”
  3.  “Non-Text Contrast”

Any preference? I lean towards 2, but could live with 3.

-Alastair


-----------------------------------------------------------------
ATTENTION:
The information in this e-mail is confidential and only meant for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, don't use or disclose it in any way. Please let the sender know and delete the message immediately.
-----------------------------------------------------------------