A palette can look coherent in a presentation and fail when the same accent color becomes a button label, chart legend, or small caption. The useful question is not “Are our brand colors accessible?” in isolation. It is “Which foreground and background pairs work for which jobs?”
For web content, WCAG 2.2 sets a minimum contrast ratio of 4.5:1 for normal text and 3:1 for large text at Level AA. Non-text contrast is 3:1 for visual information needed to identify interface controls and states, or to understand a graphic. These are different tests. A color can pass for a large headline and still fail for a small button label.
Give every color a role
Start with the planned uses: body text, headings, buttons, links, form errors, chart labels, illustrations, and decorative fields. For each use, record the exact foreground and background pair. Test the final rendered combination, including text on photographs, gradients, translucent overlays, hover states, and disabled states where relevant. A palette swatch against white does not test a caption sitting over an image.
| Brand use | What to check | Decision to record |
|---|---|---|
| Paragraphs and small labels | Text contrast at the actual size and weight | Approved pair or a darker/lighter text alternative |
| Large headlines | Large-text contrast under the applicable WCAG definition | Size and background conditions in which the pair works |
| Buttons and form fields | Label contrast and the visible boundary or state cue | Default, focus, error, and selected versions |
| Charts and status messages | Whether information survives without color alone | Labels, patterns, symbols, or text added |
WCAG’s use-of-color criterion says color must not be the only visual way to convey information, indicate an action, prompt a response, or distinguish an element. A green “approved” dot and red “needs work” dot need words or another distinguishable cue. That is a content and interaction decision, not merely a palette adjustment.
Do not treat the logo exception as a palette exemption
WCAG exempts text that forms a logo or brand name from its text-contrast requirement. The exemption does not transfer to navigation, campaign copy, pricing, or a button simply because it uses the same brand color. The W3C explanation of non-text contrast also distinguishes logos from graphics required to understand content.
Keep the identity recognizable while giving it practical variants: a dark wordmark for light surfaces, a light wordmark for dark surfaces, and approved text colors that meet the task. Those are design recommendations; the actual pass/fail result depends on the specific asset and rendered contrast. Do not label an entire brand “WCAG compliant” because one sample page passed.
Put the test into the identity guidelines
A useful handoff names the tested pair, its permitted role, the contrast result, and the surfaces where it was checked. For example, “accent orange on charcoal: large headline only” is more actionable than “use orange sparingly.” Add a small set of prohibited combinations. Give the campaign team a template with approved caption treatment so they do not have to improvise on every reel or banner.
Before approving a launch asset, review at least one real mobile page, one desktop page, and each high-volume campaign format. Automated contrast tools help with measured pairs, but someone still has to check whether text over an image shifts, a chart relies on color alone, or a button state disappears. WCAG is a web-content standard; applying the same checks to non-web graphics is a useful design discipline, not a claim that one standard governs every medium.
ARCHV creates visual identities and guidelines as part of its brand identity work. A brief that lists real uses—site, social, film titles, packaging, or signage—lets the palette be tested for the places customers will actually see it.