Re: CfC: Issue 200

+1 to cfc

PS: I saw that 3.1 wasnt included too, David, but figured I had missed
something myself in the conversation.
...

Katie Haritos-Shea
703-371-5545

On Oct 26, 2016 6:19 AM, "David MacDonald" <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote:

> PS
>
> Just noticed something. Current proposal in the minutes leaves out
> 3:1. Shouldn't the first sentence include 3:1
>
> "the 7.1, 4.5:1, and 3.1 contrast rations referenced..."
>
> OR simpler
>
> "The contrast ratios referenced..."
>
>
> Current proposal in the minutes leaves out 3:1
> The 7:1 and 4.5:1 contrast ratios referenced in this Success Criteria are
> intended to be treated as threshold values. When comparing the computed
> contrast ratio to the Success Criteria ratio the computed values should not
> be rounded (eg. 4.499:1 would not meet the 4.5:1 threshold).
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
>
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>
>
>
> *  Adapting the web to all users*
> *            Including those with disabilities*
>
> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 6:03 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> I think a threshold value is the simplest solution for different number
>> of significant digits (3:1 and 4.5:1) and its consistent with what I was
>> thinking when I voted for those ratios 10 years ago. This is the minimum
>> contrast and don't make that text any lighter on a light background.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David MacDonald
>>
>>
>>
>> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>> Tel:  613.235.4902
>>
>> LinkedIn
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>>
>> twitter.com/davidmacd
>>
>> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>>
>> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>
>>
>>
>>
>> *  Adapting the web to all users*
>> *            Including those with disabilities*
>>
>> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
>> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Chakravarthula, Srinivasu <
>> srchakravarthula@informatica.com> wrote:
>>
>>> +1 to this and Agreed to CfC.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> -Vasu
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> *S*rinivasu* C*hakravarthula
>>>
>>> *L*ead *A*ccessibility *C*onsultant
>>>
>>> *Informatica <http://informatica.com/>* *B*usiness *S*olutions *P*vt *L*
>>> td.,
>>>
>>> *W*ork: +91-80-4020-3760 | *C*ell: +91 99008 10881
>>>
>>> *W*ebsite <http://srinivasu.org/> | *A*ccessibility *B*log
>>> <http://serveominclusion.com/> | *L*inkedIn
>>> <http://linkedin.com/in/srinivasuc> | *T*witter
>>> <http://twitter.com/CSrinivasu>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Gregg Vanderheiden RTF [mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org]
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 26, 2016 10:01 AM
>>> *To:* James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com>
>>> *Cc:* Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>; GLWAI Guidelines WG org <
>>> w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>>> *Subject:* Re: CfC: Issue 200
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Very interesting.    The two numbers have different degrees of accuracy
>>> in them.      According to the same logic     2.499999 would fail     2.5
>>> would pass.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So the “no rounding” would seem to provide more consistent results.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Now I can live with the decision even more..
>>>
>>>
>>> *gregg*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 25, 2016, at 10:30 PM, James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 3:1 has 1 less digits of accuracy so is 1 digit less of accuracy
>>> appropriate when rounding in order to meet that? Can you please give
>>> examples as to what is intended to meet and fail each of the ratios?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To be honest I'm not sure anyone cares what we decide - we just need
>>> something unambiguous so all the tool vendors can agree on results.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 25, 2016, at 19:16, Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry I didnt see this earlier.   I don’t want to block consensus..  But
>>> I had a lot to do with this provision and I believe that the numbers should
>>> be taken at the accuracy that they are presented at.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That is     4.5:1  has only one digit of accuracy.     So  4.499  is in
>>> fact  4.5 at the degree of accuracy in the WCAG.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But consensus is not   ‘what do I think it should be’   but   ‘can I
>>> live with it’
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And I can live with it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *gregg*
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 25, 2016, at 4:43 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> CALL FOR CONSENSUS – ends Thursday October 27 at 5:00pm Boston time.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is a proposed response to an issue that was submitted.  The item
>>> was surveyed, discussed on the WG call, and approved (
>>> http://www.w3.org/2016/10/25-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item04).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The original issue and proposed response: https://github.com/w
>>> 3c/wcag/issues/200#issuecomment-256091343.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have
>>> not been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not
>>> being able to live with” this position, please let the group know before
>>> the CfC deadline.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> AWK
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>>>
>>> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
>>>
>>> Adobe
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> akirkpat@adobe.com
>>>
>>> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>