"Not applicable" in 1.4.11

[JAWS-test]

I don't understand why Figure 12 isn't applicable in https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/non-text-contrast.html
There is a text alternative (this is required in 1.1.1). But: As a visually impaired, but not blind person I might not want to read the text, but to see the diagram. Why: Information can be captured more easily in diagrams than in text form (otherwise there would be no diagrams).
Furthermore, the SC text does not allow an exception to 1.4.11 except: "when a particular presentation of graphics is essential to the information being conveyed", but this does not apply to Figure 12.

[patrickhlauke]

As a visually impaired, but not blind person I might not want to read the text, but to see the diagram.

you may want to, but the point is that you'd still be able to get the information. you're not actually prevented from understanding the content conveyed by the graph. if you can't distinguish the graph's colours because they're low-ish contrast, AND you then personally choose not to read the text because you don't prefer it...that's personal choice, the author didn't prevent you from understanding the content.

[jake-abma]

Indeed it's all about the equivalent (textual) alternative. If that one serves the same information you're save / pass from a WCAG perspective. In this case also neatly stated as a explanation for applicability.

Not applicable: The pie chart has visible labels and values that convey equivalent information to the graphical objects (the pie slices).

[JAWS-test]

I find this unsatisfactory because such exceptions are explicitly defined in other test criteria, e.g. in 2.5.5, 1.2.2 and 1.2.3.

• "Equivalent: The target is available through an equivalent link or control on the same page that is at least 44 by 44 CSS pixels"
• "except when the media is a media alternative for text and is clearly labeled as such."

[JAWS-test]

To what extent are numbers a good alternative for diagrams for cognitively limited users would be the question.

I would like to suggest to insert a note in the Understanding that it is better to pay attention to sufficient contrasts and not simply to insert a text alternative (which of course also makes sense in combination with sufficiently visible diagrams and to fulfill 1.1.1).

[patrickhlauke]

To what extent are numbers a good alternative for diagrams for cognitively limited users would be the question

to the extent that you can't say "a user who can't distinguish colors well/at all won't get the information provided by the chart" and sue the web author for it.

[patrickhlauke]

and yes, i know we shouldn't concentrate too much on the legal aspect here, as WCAG isn't about that directly...but because it IS used in legal proceedings/requirements, this is the background against which we need to also consciously word/delimit SCs. (which is not to say if something is nominally passing WCAG that, if it came to a court decision, it wouldn't be possible to argue "while this nominally passes, it still puts an undue burden on this particular group of users" on a case-by-case basis, but it's about avoiding going too far the other way where even a minor "infraction" can be construed as a normative fail when it has little to no real-world effect).

[lauracarlson]

@JAWS-test wrote on 26 Aug 2019:

To what extent are numbers a good alternative for diagrams for cognitively limited users would be the question.

Numbers are not a good alternative. We discussed this point in April 2018, prior to WCAG 2.1 reaching Rec. As I mentioned then, Joe Clark talked about it in a 2006 WCAG comment. He said:

We create diagrams because data are too hard to understand. To use an analogy over again, diagrams and data are like a suitcase that can be unpacked but not easily repacked. If data were understandable by themselves, We wouldn't make a chart. I can assure the Working Group that giving nondisabled people a really nice chart and disabled people a table with 10,000 or more data points does not constitute equality in any sense.

However, as Alastair replied to me,

As soon as you get to a certain number of colours (3 or 4 at 3:1) that make significant contact, you cannot have sufficient contrast.

Using the 'required for understanding, as a scoping mechanism (including allowing for visible text fulfilling the same information) gets over significant objections about feasibility, without which I don't think we'd have this SC.

The significant objections about feasibility is what gutted the SC.

[JAWS-test]

@lauracarlson: Thank you for the valuable information

As soon as you get to a certain number of colours (3 or 4 at 3:1) that make significant contact, you cannot have sufficient contrast.

This is right, but Figure 13 (https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/non-text-contrast.html) shows a way to avoid the problem of direct color contrasts: by border or white space (distance).

Besides, the question is always which diagram form I choose. I do not have to use a pie chart, but can take a bar chart

[alastc]

Hi @JAWS-test, I think @patrickhlauke's first comment answers the question, can we close this issue?

[JAWS-test]

I close because the question is answered. However, I do not consider the solution to be optimal. I would like to see future versions of WCAG not allow such exceptions.