W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > April 2008

Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Working Draft of December, 2007

From: BITV-Test Redaktion <redaktion@bitvtest.de>
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:37:18 +0200
Message-ID: <47FB66FE.5040106@bitvtest.de>
To: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
CC: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org

Dear Loretta and WCAG Working Group,

thanks for your answer!
Please see our response at the bottom of this e-mail:


Loretta Guarino Reid wrote:
>>  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
>>     
> ---------------------------------------------
> Response from Working Group:
> ---------------------------------------------
> We think there must be some misunderstanding, since a 3:1 contrast
> ratio would be less, rather than more, strict that the current 5:1
> contrast ratio.
>
> A Web page that is as conformant as possible would meet SC 1.4.6 and
> would have a 7:1 contrast ratio. However, at Level AA this is only
> advisory, and a 5:1 ratio would conform.
>
>
> Thanks again for the interest that you have taken in these guidelines.
> Could we ask you to let us know whether or not you are satisfied with
> this response by Wed, April 9?
>
> Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair
> Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair
> Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact
>
> On behalf of the WCAG Working Group

Okay, I'll try to clarify this - we mean the following:


As it is a website can conform with 1.4.3 in two ways:

1. The default layout has a contrast ratio of 5:1 (no contrast control 
needed to conform).

2. The default layout does not have a contrast ratio of 5:1, but offers 
a contrast control, so users can switch to a higher contrast layout.

We feel that in case 2 (and case 2 only!) it should not be possible to 
conform just by adding a contrast control, regardless of how bad the 
contrast ratio of the default layout ist. Even if there is a contrast 
control the default layout should at least have minimum contrast ratio 
of some kind.


Which is why we propose that a website may conform with 1.4.3 in the 
following two ways:

1. The default layout has a contrast ratio of 5:1 (no contrast control 
needed to conform).

2. The default layout does not have a contrast ratio of 5:1, but offers 
a contrast control, so users can switch to a higher contrast layout. In 
this case the default layout needs to have a contrast ratio of at least 3:1.


Is this clearer?

Thanks for your patience,
Michael Zapp
Received on Tuesday, 8 April 2008 12:51:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 April 2008 12:51:04 GMT