This document:Public document·Annotated document·View comments·Search comments·Add a new comment·Send replies to comments·Disposition of Comments·
Nearby:Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group
Other specs in this tool
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group's Issue tracker
Quick access to LC-2908
There are 7 comments (sorted by their types, and the section they are about).
If the placeholder text is required to meet 4.5:1 contrast ratio, should the compliance be required by developers (modify with CSS) or should the burden rest with browser manufacturers?
I need to ask you a question about appropriate alt text for a logo with the letters TM (for trademark) embedded in it.
The context of the question...a State Farm logo with the registered trademark symbol after it https://www.statefarm.com/
While I know it is nit-picky...my personal interpretation is...that "Registered Trademark Symbol" has meaning and needs alt text.
I need an official W3C interpretation on this. Is alt text required for the "registered trademark symbol" or not?
It would be helpful to clarify this at http://dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/#sec14
In "Intent of this Success Criterion" section, it reads "Corporate visual guidelines beyond logo and logotype are not included in the exception." in the 6th paragraph.
There can be a case where a designer want to use the same colors used on logo. In such case, a designer would not have a choice to select colors to be used.
If using the color used on logo (ex. #FF0000) would result in insufficient contrast ratio, would it fail SC 1.4.3?
Even if a designer understood SC 1.4.3, he/she will avoid using different colors than #FF0000 because it could undermine the visual identity and/or corporate identity of the organization.
Also there can be a case where brand design guideline defines a set of colors to be used for any visual design on web, ad, brochure, and so on and a designer has no choice.
Is "Corporate visual guidelines beyond logo and logotype are not included in the exception." also applied to such case?
If so, should we change the colors defined in the guidelines to meet SC 1.4.3? I think it's too strict.
I understand that H69 is one of the sufficient techniques to meet SC 2.4.1 and using H69 is not requred to meet SC 2.4.1.
However the sufficient technique for SC 2.4.1 should be like "Providing heading elements at the beginning of main content and repeated sections on multiple web pages." SC 2.4.1 only requires a mechanism "to bypass blocks of content that are repeated on multiple Web pages."
Do we need a heading for a section which is not repeated on multiple web pages in order to meet SC 2.4.1?
H69 looks like a sufficient technique for SC 2.4.10 and requires authors to do more than the requirements of SC 2.4.1. And it could lead them to misunderstanding that each section on a page has to have a heading(h1-h6) in order to meet SC 2.4.1.
Move H69 to SC 2.4.10 and modify H69 to clarify the requirement of SC 2.4.1 and add it as a new sufficient technique to SC 2.4.1.
Dear WCAG WG,
Please avoid the phrase "color contrast".
Some places we've found it:
Additionally, several pages include "color contrast" in the Resources listings. We wonder if it would be worthwhile to add a note there, e.g., something along the lines of what we have at <http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/preliminary#contrast>: This accessibility requirement is sometimes called sufficient "color contrast"; however, that is incorrect — technically it's "luminance contrast"...
The linked "Related Resource", 'The Sound of the Accessible Title Tag Separator', is incorrect. The proper URL for this resource is http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2004/title-text-separators/
The proper URL for this resource is http://www.standards-schmandards.com/2004/title-text-separators/
Understanding SC 2.4.4 says contextual text may be in the heading immediately preceding the link.
But SC 80 is marked as an advisory technique
(H80: Identifying the purpose of a link using link text combined with the preceding heading element)
This appears to be inconsistent. Admittedly, only JAWS is good at announcing preceding heading without moving focus from a link.
Fix: Remove reference to 'preceding heading' for determining context in understanding doc or make H80 sufficient.
Add a comment.