W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: Fw: UPDATE suggested alternatives to accessible version

From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2012 08:34:17 +0000
Message-ID: <4F420589.7010105@david-woolley.me.uk>
To: Jonathan Hassell <jonathanhassell@yahoo.co.uk>
CC: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Jonathan Hassell wrote:
> Accordingly, you'll find that both of the colour combinations you 
> mention meet WCAG-AA rather than having 'almost zero colour contrast'.

If #007e1a (peak, many pixels darker due to anti-aliasing), on #474848, 
equivalent to 30% gray on 28% gray passes the standard, there is 
something wrong with the standard. When sampling the grayscale colour 
values, I had to enlarge the image to be able to see the boundaries 
accurately enough to do the sampling.

The body text drew my attention because I was tending to skip it when 
skim reading the text.  Zoomed in and greyscaled, it isn't too bad, 
although green is the eyes' most sensitive colour. I'd already been 
primed to be critical by the tabs and the empty space.
> In turn, could I point out that high colour contrast colour-schemes, 
> whilst helping many people with vision impairments, actually hinder a 
> great number of dyslexic people from reading the page.

That might help if you were consistently low contrast.
> So it's impossible to please everyone, unless you provide a means of 
> changing the colours on the site.

This is something browsers themselves allow one to do on unstyled sites.

> As for 'large areas white on the first two screenfuls' - no-one else has 

Screenshots sent direct.

David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Monday, 20 February 2012 08:34:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:43 UTC