Add note about logo/logotypes to 1.4.3, 1.4.6, and 1.4.11 understanding #4402
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for wcag2 ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
patrickhlauke
force-pushed
the
patrickhlauke-logo-logotype-exemption-note
branch
from
be46563 to
60558b0
Compare
| <em>graphical objects</em>, under the assumption that they must comply with stricter color choices mandated | ||
| by corporate identity guidelines. | ||
| However, this is not the case when they also act as <em>user interface components</em> | ||
| (such as links or other interactive controls). In these cases, authors should choose |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think people might read your writing as best practice or advice. "If the logo is a user interface component, you should ...."
While I think you meant to say something like: "When logos are used as interface components don't meet contrast requirements, you could do one of the following..."
I think a more explicit disctinction between the clarifcation (user interface components are not excempt) and the possible solutions would be more clear than the current proposal.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i intended it in the RFC sense
3. SHOULD This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
will discuss in the working group if we need to use stronger language (such as "authors must either choose ... or ...")
| <p>Logos and logotypes are exempted from contrast requirements when they are purely used as | ||
| <em>graphical objects</em>, under the assumption that they must comply with stricter color choices mandated | ||
| by corporate identity guidelines. | ||
| However, this is not the case when they also act as <em>user interface components</em> | ||
| (such as links or other interactive controls). In these cases, authors should choose | ||
| a variant of the logo or logotype that has sufficient contrast, if allowed by the | ||
| corporate identity guidelines. | ||
| Alternatively, authors should provide an equivalent <em>user interface component</em> | ||
| which serves the same purpose and does meet the contrast requirements.</p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| <p>Logos and logotypes are exempted from contrast requirements when they are purely used as | |
| <em>graphical objects</em>, under the assumption that they must comply with stricter color choices mandated | |
| by corporate identity guidelines. | |
| However, this is not the case when they also act as <em>user interface components</em> | |
| (such as links or other interactive controls). In these cases, authors should choose | |
| a variant of the logo or logotype that has sufficient contrast, if allowed by the | |
| corporate identity guidelines. | |
| Alternatively, authors should provide an equivalent <em>user interface component</em> | |
| which serves the same purpose and does meet the contrast requirements.</p> | |
| <p>Logos and logotypes are exempted from contrast requirements when they are purely used as | |
| <em>graphical objects</em>, under the assumption that they must comply with stricter color choices mandated | |
| by corporate identity guidelines. They are not exempt when they also act as | |
| <em>user interface components</em> (such as links or other interactive controls).</p> | |
| <p>When logos and logotypes are used as <em>user interface components</em>, authors should | |
| choose a variant of the logo or logotype that has sufficient contrast, if allowed by the | |
| corporate identity guidelines. | |
| Alternatively, authors should provide an equivalent <em>user interface component</em> | |
| which serves the same purpose and does meet the contrast requirements.</p> |
I understand the value and meaning of should in RFCs. I hope this slight rephrasing and reformatting makes the text more explicit and understandable.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Visually, the code looks like you want that update as two paragraphs, but there's only one set of <p> tags. Should it be one or two?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Noting that making this categorical statement will no doubt ruffle some feathers, as it "seems" to introduce a normative failure by the backdoor that some will argue wasn't as cut and dry there before...which is why I was treading lightly (in one of the linked issues there was some mention of "exempting logos was on purpose as it would lead to too many failures" or words to that effect)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
happy to take it as additional suggestion to the WCAG 2.x backlog group though for further discussion
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@erikkroes I updated your suggestion above for clarity (keeping the line breaks where they were, so it's clearer what your change is), and assuming you did want the first para to be actually split into two as well
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've opened this issue for clarification, so maybe I tread less lightly 😄
The split might not be needed indeed. I think it helped make my point in this conversation, but it should be fine without.
Thanks for picking this up and taking it further!
While exempting text or non-text that is part of a logo/logotype makes sense (due to some companies' strict corporate identity requirements), it's nonetheless problematic when these logos/logotypes act as links of buttons.
These notes try to clarify the situation ... while for 1.4.3 and 1.4.6 these notes arguably add a new normative requirement (though using should), for 1.4.11 the interpretation is also arguably already part of the normative wording (as a logo/logotype used for a link or button acts as a user interface control, which does not have an exemption).
Closes #4376, closes #1275, closes #1739, closes #1742
x-ref #902