- From: BITV-Test Redaktion <redaktion@bitvtest.de>
- Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:38:31 +0200
- To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Dear WCAG 2 working group, thanks for your comments! Here are our replies: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment 1: Minimum contrast needed for default layout in case 1.4.3 is met via a contrast control Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0056.html (Issue ID: 2434) Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER You seem to have somewhat misunderstood our proposal: we are not suggesting that 1.4.3 should be moved to level A. But we do think that the success criterion should be slightly stricter and require the default layout to have a contrast ratio of at least 3:1, even if a contrast control is provided. This would be in line with note 4 in the glossary item on alternate versions: "Each version should be as conformant as possible." http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20071211/#conforming-alternate-versiondef Apart from that we are satisfied with your resolutions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment 2: Why do contrast requirements not apply to lines in diagrams and such? Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0057.html (Issue ID: 2435) Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED We do realize that there are cases where graphs etc. are so complex that it is hardly possible to ensure accessibility through appropriate colours. But there are plenty of much simpler cases where accessibility does depend significantly on the choice of suitable colours. In order to preserve testability the success criteria could be restricted to these simple cases that can be identified and tested unambiguously. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment 3: Background images disappear with user-specific colors Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0058.html (Issue ID: 2436) Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER We are satisfied with your resolutions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment 4: Why the exception for proper names and technical terms? Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0059.html (Issue ID: 2437) Status: VERIFIED / ACCEPTED We are satisfied with your resolutions. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2008 15:24:53 UTC