- From: Charles McCathieNevile <chaals@opera.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 11:37:56 +0100
- To: "Robert Walpole" <robert.walpole@devon.gov.uk>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 09:42:42 +0100, Robert Walpole
<robert.walpole@devon.gov.uk> wrote:
> The logo is basically some text in
> a pale green on a white background - not a sufficient contrast for text
> by any measure but as this is a logo does it matter? I can add title and
> alt attributes to the image but is this sufficient for compliance
> purposes or should we really go back to the designer and request a more
> accessible logo?
The point about contrast is enabling people to see things. If the logo is
textual, but too low contrast to read, the odds are that it is too low
contrast to be recognisable in any case, which means it isn't doing its
job as a logo. (Note that contrast is higher priority for images than for
text, since in principle you can more easily change it for text).
So yes, I would be going back to the designer, pointing out that
recognition by everyone is a requirement for the design and low contrast
washouts aren't going to meet that requirement...
(This is based on my imagining the design, which is of course not
reliable. Please check my arguments with your perception of reality. Your
mileage may vary :)
cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathieNevile chaals@opera.com
hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk
Peek into the kitchen: http://snapshot.opera.com/
Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2006 10:38:17 UTC