exception for logos (1.4.3, 1.4.11)

[JAWS-test]

• 1.4.3 has the exception for logos in the normative SC
• 1.4.11 has no exception for logos in the normative SC for "User Interface Components".
• 1.4.11 has the "essential" exception for "Graphical Objects" in normative SC
• "essential" is clearly defined: "if removed, would fundamentally change the information or functionality of the content, and information and functionality cannot be achieved in another way that would conform ". In my opinion, logos do not fall under this definition, at least not if they convey information or serve as interactive elements.
• The Understanding declares that logos fall under the "essential" exception on the one hand, and there is a fail example for logos on the other (Figure 14). I consider this to be contradictory, even if the logos have been changed in colour, it is not clear that this is the only reason why it is a fail. Why are logos essential? Why is logo exception at 1.4.3 in normative SC and at 1.4.11 only in non-normative Understanding? I understand that logos cannot be changed so easily, but if a logo does not have sufficient contrasts, it should not be used without visible alternative text.
• what is if a logo is both a "Graphical Object" and a "User Interface Component" (link with the logo as the only label)? Does the exception "essential" apply or not?

My suggestion:

• for WCAG 2.1 and 2.2: Answer the above questions in the Understanding.
• for WCAG 3.0: Remove the exception for logos. Alternatively, leave the exception only if the logos do not convey information or are interactive elements.

See also the discussion, starting from comment: #901 (comment)

[alastc]

"essential" is clearly defined... In my opinion, logos do not fall under this definition, at least not if they convey information or serve as interactive elements.

In my opinion it does, it is such a well established exception from WCAG 2.0 that during the discussions on non-text contrast we decided not to call it out separately.

It is currently called out in the understanding doc. I can put it to the group if you like, but I suspect the answer would be that it is fine as-is.

[JAWS-test]

In my opinion it does, it is such a well established exception from WCAG 2.0 that during the discussions on non-text contrast we decided not to call it out separately.

I don't think that's a good decision. If WCAG 2.1 supplements WCAG 2.0, it would have been better to maintain the way in which exceptions are described so that SCs remain consistent.

What's more important:

what is if a logo is both a "Graphical Object" and a "User Interface Component" (link with the logo as the only label)? Does the exception "essential" apply or not?

That's relevant because

1.4.11 has no exception for logos in the normative SC for "User Interface Components".
1.4.11 has the "essential" exception for "Graphical Objects" in normative SC

[alastc]

Yesterday the group agreed this response:

The exception for logos is a well established exception from WCAG 2.0 that during the discussions on non-text contrast we decided not to call it out separately.

[JAWS-test]

In my opinion, this does not take into account that logos can be used as labels for links, buttons and other things. Then the contrast should be kept. Should I open a new issue for this or can it be opened again?

[mraccess77]

I agree - when logos are used for links or buttons it poses an issue for users. In particular examples include social media logos used to follow or share articles, etc.