3 ms·
>people with low-vision. What does this mean? How does this relate to current logo? Is this a color blindness issue?
by morty_s 6y ago
>people with low-vision.
What does this mean? How does this relate to current logo? Is this a color blindness issue?
- syrusakbary 6y agoThere is a color accessibility issue with the current logo. I've explained it here: https://speakerdeck.com/syrusakbary/wasi-logo-proposal https://speakerdeck.com/syrusakbary/wasi-logo-proposal
- marcinzm 6y agoIt's a logo not a paragraph of text. The overall image is supposed to convey the brand and not just a piece of it. Even W3/WCAG agrees and logos are exempt from the contrast requirement. So your whole argument of citing WCAG is irrelevant as it explicitly doesn't apply to logos.
- syrusakbary 6y agoIt really depends if you consider "WASI" as essential to the information conveyed in the logo. Or said in other way: if the logo intent is to be readable. https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/images-of-text.html https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/images-of-text.h...
- marcinzm 6y agoI don't see how that link is relevant. Essential in that link simply indicates, as I read it, that the specific way the text of an image logo is rendered is essential to it's function. In other words that you can't simply replace the WASI in the image with the text "WASI." Essential does not mean that is must meet some requirements or be readable. In fact the contrast requirement your presentation cites is explicit in that it doesn't: https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/visual-audio-contrast-contrast.html https://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/visual-audio-cont... >Logotypes: Text that is part of a logo or brand name has no minimum contrast requirement.