Add clarification to 1.4.11 Non-text contrast understanding about logos acting as user interface components - UIC "inherits" the exemption for logos with insufficient contrast#5133
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Alastair Campbell <ac@alastc.com>
…y best practice suggestions
* see if "user interface component" can be linked correctly from the understanding docs * re-add the "equivalent UIC" idea to 1.4.11 too
…github.com/w3c/wcag into patrickhlauke-logo-logotype-exemption-note
Co-authored-by: Francis Storr <francis.storr@intel.com>
Co-authored-by: Francis Storr <francis.storr@intel.com>
Co-authored-by: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Co-authored-by: Adam Page <adam@adampage.net>
Co-authored-by: Adam Page <adam@adampage.net>
…eak notes, reformat
…logotype-exemption-note' into patrickhlauke-logo-logotype-exemption-note
…os acting as user interface components - UIC "inherits" the exemption for logos with insufficient contrast
✅ Deploy Preview for wcag2 ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
patrickhlauke
changed the base branch from
main
to
patrickhlauke-logo-logotype-exemption-note
|
scratches head - why do you thumb-down your own proposal? Personally, I still see the normative wording can be read in two ways depending on how you parse it, and the conclusion that logos once linked must meet contrast requirements is not quite convincing. I think @awkawk has a point when noting that logos frequently act as links to the root page. The normative text simply does not address either way the conflict between the essential nature of logos and the requirement for UICs, and is in my view therefore an insufficent basis for the proposed change. |
because personally, i don't like it/agree with it...
the conclusion (from the other PR) is that the logo is exempt - that doesn't change. but the UIC itself needs something else that has sufficient contrast to make it actually perceivable - whether it's using a variant of the logo, a border, an extra line, something adjacent... |
| (such as a link or other interactive control). In these cases, as a best practice, authors should consider choosing a variant of | ||
| the logo that has sufficient contrast, if allowed by the corporate identity or brand guidelines. | ||
| (such as a link or other interactive control). While the exemption only explicitly applies to logos as <em>graphical objects</em>, | ||
| <em>user interface components</em> whose only visible aspect is a logo are <strong>also exempted</strong>. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While the exemption only explicitly applies to logos as graphical objects, user interface components whose only visible aspect is a logo are also exempted.
I find this wording unclear and the construction confusing.
The wording also leaves a gap considering the many cases where a logo has a textual byline that is part of the same graphic, and is exempt via the 1.4.3. exception "Text that is part of a logo or brand name has no contrast requirement." Given the suggested wording, would the logo, used as UIC, not fall under the exception when there is more than mere graphics in the logo image?
I would suggest something simpler: "Logos fall under the essential exception. They are exempt even when used as user interface element." (Followed, of course, by the strong recommendation to use a contrasty version whenever possible.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You beat me to it @detlevhfischer. The phrasing seems like it was written to convey the author's disagreement with the words being written. :)
I suggest:
<p>Logos are exempted from contrast requirements, both as graphics and when used as a <a>user interface component</a>, under the assumption that they must comply with stricter color choices mandated by corporate identity or brand guidelines. As a best practice, authors should consider choosing a variant of the logo that has sufficient contrast, if allowed by the corporate identity or brand guidelines.</p>
This is an overreach and should be removed:
<p>If logos are presented with an insufficient contrast, but their presentation was an author choice rather than being mandated by corporate identity or brand guidelines, then that particular low contrast presentation is <em>not</em> "essential", and the logo is <em>not</em> exempt from the contrast requirements.</p>
<figure id="figure-low-contrast-logos-author-choice"> <img src="img/1.4.11-ntc-author-choice-logos.png" alt="A heading: 'ACME tool is trusted by the world's most innovative companies.'; below the heading, a series of nine company logos, all presented as very dark grey logos on the page's black background, with very low contrast; one logo is hovered with the mouse, and is displayed in white, with high contrast against the page background."> <figcaption>An author chooses to present company logos with low contrast by default, until they are hovered; the fact that these are logos doesn't exempt this scenario from failing the requirements of this success criterion, as the initial low contrast presentation is not "essential"</figcaption>
I suggest also adding:
<p>While logos are exempted, it is worth noting that <a>user interface components</a> containing logos (such as a link to a company home page) are not exempted from other aspects of this success criterion, such as the requirement to have sufficient contrast for the focus indicator for the control.</p>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The phrasing seems like it was written to convey the author's disagreement with the words being written. :)
The words were trying hard to provide an explanation for a handwavy rationale that is not in fact present in the normative wording...
This is an overreach and should be removed:
That was part of a previous PR, not part of this PR. And that PR already passed the review period with support from other AGWG members #4402
I suggest also adding:
Good suggestion.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That was part of a previous PR, not part of this PR. And that PR already passed the review period with support from other AGWG members #4402
Still problematic.
4 participants
Counter-proposal to #5113
The normative wording for 1.4.11 https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#non-text-contrast
has two distinct aspects/subjects - user interface components (UICs) and graphical objects.
Logos that have insufficient non-text contrast are exempted when they act as graphical objects, as their (low contrast) colours fall under the "except when a particular presentation of graphics is essential" clause.
However, when logos are the only content inside a UIC, the logo itself may be exempt, but the UIC around it has no explicit exemption. A button/control only containing a logo with insufficient contrast, and no other sufficiently contrasting visual indicator, normatively doesn't appear to be exempt.
This PR handwaves this and says that the exemption for the logo carries over/is inherited by the UIC
Follow-up to #4402
Closes #4376, closes #1275, closes #1739
x-ref #902