Skip to content

Add note about logo/logotypes contrast to 1.4.3, 1.4.6, and 1.4.11 understanding #4402

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
+39 −2
Open

Add note about logo/logotypes contrast to 1.4.3, 1.4.6, and 1.4.11 understanding #4402

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
60558b0
Add note about logo/logotypes to 1.4.3, 1.4.6, and 1.4.11 understanding
patrickhlauke May 18, 2025
1dc7634
Merge branch 'main' into patrickhlauke-logo-logotype-exemption-note
patrickhlauke May 20, 2025
b4471c1
Merge branch 'main' into patrickhlauke-logo-logotype-exemption-note
patrickhlauke May 24, 2025
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
14 changes: 13 additions & 1 deletion understanding/20/contrast-enhanced.html
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -126,7 +126,19 @@ <h2>Intent of Contrast (Enhanced)</h2>
in charts, graphs, diagrams, and other non-text-based information, which is covered by
<a href="non-text-contrast">Success Criterion 1.4.11 Non-Text Contrast</a>.
</p>


<div class="note">
<p>Text used as part of a logo or logotype is exempted from contrast requirements,
under the assumption that logos/logotypes must comply with stricter color choices mandated
by corporate identity guidelines.
However, this can be problematic when the logo or logotype also acts as a
<em>user interface component</em> (such as a link or other interactive control).
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>
Comment on lines +131 to +139
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
<p>Text used as part of a logo or logotype is exempted from contrast requirements,
under the assumption that logos/logotypes must comply with stricter color choices mandated
by corporate identity guidelines.
However, this can be problematic when the logo or logotype also acts as a
<em>user interface component</em> (such as a link or other interactive control).
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>Text used as part of a logo or logotype is exempted from contrast requirements, under the assumption that logos/logotypes must comply with stricter color choices mandated by corporate identity guidelines. However, this can be problematic when the logo or logotype also acts as a <em>user interface component</em> (such as a link or other interactive control). Some part of the control must meet the 3:1 contrast ratio so users can identify that there is a control there. Authors could choose a variant of the logo or logotype that has sufficient contrast, include a border with contrast, or provide an equivalent <em>user interface component</em> which serves the same purpose and does meet the contrast requirements.</p>

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A suggestion to avoid "should".

</div>

<section>

<h3>Rationale for the Ratios Chosen</h3>
Expand Down
14 changes: 13 additions & 1 deletion understanding/20/contrast-minimum.html
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -130,7 +130,19 @@ <h2>Intent of Contrast (Minimum)</h2>
<p>See also
<a href="contrast-enhanced">1.4.6: Contrast (Enhanced)</a>.
</p>


<div class="note">
<p>Text used as part of a logo or logotype is exempted from contrast requirements,
under the assumption that logos/logotypes must comply with stricter color choices mandated
by corporate identity guidelines.
However, this can be problematic when the logo or logotype also acts as a
<em>user interface component</em> (such as a link or other interactive control).
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>
</div>

<section>

<h3>Rationale for the Ratios Chosen</h3>
Expand Down
13 changes: 13 additions & 0 deletions understanding/21/non-text-contrast.html
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -396,6 +396,19 @@ <h4>Required for Understanding</h4>
<li> The information is available in another form, such as in a table that follows the graph, which becomes visible when a "Long Description" button is pressed.</li>
<li> The graphic is part of a logo or brand name (which is considered &quot;essential&quot; to its presentation).</li>
</ul>

<div class="note">
<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
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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.

Copy link
Member Author

@patrickhlauke patrickhlauke May 20, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

will discuss in the working group if we need to use stronger language (such as "authors must either choose ... or ...")

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In fact, if the logo is visible by some contrasting parts, it should be sufficient if the text inside is given by an alternative like a tooltip. Where the tooltip should also explain the functionality.

Copy link
Contributor

@gundulaniemann gundulaniemann May 23, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggestion:
If the logo is used as an interactive component, ensure the component can be determined, either by contrasting parts inside the logo, by some outline, or by an additional text, to name a few options.

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>
Comment on lines +401 to +409
Copy link

@erikkroes erikkroes May 20, 2025 •
edited by patrickhlauke
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
<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.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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)

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

happy to take it as additional suggestion to the WCAG 2.x backlog group though for further discussion

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@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

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

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!

</div>

</section>
<section>
<h4>Gradients</h4>
Expand Down