errata? 1.4.11 does not exempt logos, like 1.4.3 exempts logotypes

[cyns]

I noticed that 1.4.11 non-text contrast does not exempt logos under Graphical Objects. That is inconsistent with the exemption for logotypes in 1.4.3. Is it intentional?

If it's not intentional, perhaps it's a candidate for future errata? It is unlikely that WCAG requirements will get companies to change their logos. It seems like an unreasonable ask.

[alastc]

The understanding document includes a section called "required for understanding", which has examples of graphics that are out of scope, including:

The graphic is part of a logo or brand name (which is considered "essential" to it's presentation).

Is that the sort of thing you had in mind?

[alastc]

The group discussed this, and are happy with grouping logos under 'essential', as organisions will generally consider their logo an essential thing to display in the intended fashion.
Please re-open if you think another approach should be taken.