- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@vanderheiden.us>
- Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2023 22:39:11 -0700
- To: Andrew Somers <Andy@GeneralTitles.com>
- Cc: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>, "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <F22542BF-CE52-41B8-A275-4AB83A11552A@vanderheiden.us>
Please do not try to create success criteria (or their equivalent in 3.) by example — or borderline cases. With all of the contrast measures you will find color combinations that pass that are horrendous. And for almost every WCAG rule (including 1.1) — I have found examples of pages that — if they follow the SC strictly are LESS accessible —— or rather there are more accessible ways to do something that do not conform to a success criterion. I will also remind us all — that for some people with reading disabilities — high contrast is the opposite of what they want. And the text that meets WCAG is less readable to them than low contrast (which is more readable by others). So the fact that something is more or less readable - or certain color combinations that pass are not signs that something is bad — or everything we propose will be bad. Let’s see some research - that has been conducted on a number of people with low vision. And a study with color blindness (and studies with both) and see which measures are better overall. And the colors should be randomly selected — and not include something right on the border (though if a sample is big enough they can be used as a covariate). Lets work off of - something that is based on studies of readability of text by people with low vision - and dyslexia - and colorblindness - lets not do this based on anecdotes or people with no visual/reading disabilities. - and not on anecdotes or edge case - but on the whole of the colorspace — or random sampling of it Thanks gregg ------------------------------ Gregg Vanderheiden gregg@vanderheiden.us > On Aug 3, 2023, at 6:05 PM, Andrew Somers <Andy@GeneralTitles.com> wrote: > > Thank you Jon, I very much value your feedback on this issue. > > I’m going to follow up with additional questions when I get back to the studio. > > Andy > > Sent from Andy’s iPhone > >> On Aug 3, 2023, at 17:10, Jon Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com> wrote: >> >> >> The WCAG contrast failures found in the cited Tourism document such as white on red and white on gray and light blue on white are difficult for me to read. The white on red is also almost painful for me to read. >> >> I am thankful for a current WCAG 2.0 contrast model that has correctly flagged these combinations of colors that provide problematic contrast. While the model is not perfect most of the time for me it seems to flag things that are difficult for me to read. I agree that we need to evolve the model or start over with changes in technology – but simply removing something that does have benefit with a void is not something that would be helpful to me. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Jonathan >> >> From: Andrew Somers <andy@generaltitles.com> >> Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 6:04 PM >> To: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> >> Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org >> Subject: Re: CFC - Publish WCAG2ICT First Public Working Draft >> >> >> On Aug 3, 2023, at 11:26 AM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk <mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk>> wrote: >> >> "Continued promotion" or "dealing with the reality that WCAG has been either enshrined into, or referenced by, legislation around the world right at this point, so we're having to make do with the less-than-ideal situation out here in the real world"... >> >> >> Hi Patrick. >> >> Right, 1.4.3/1.4.11 specifically are not things that should be incorporated into statute law as they stand. That they have become such is setting actual accessibility backwards. While not good as voluntary guidelines, as elevated into “law” becames bad law. The 508 has reasonable exceptions, unfortunately the EU does not, and it needs to. >> >> Something you may find amusing from a WCAG trash-panda perspective, is this guidebook on accessibility <https://www.visitbritain.org/sites/default/files/vb-corporate/visitengland_national_accessible_scheme_serviced_standards.pdf> This booklet on accessibility from the British Tourist Authority, England’s national tourist board, This accessibility guide was created in 2011: >> >> https://www.visitbritain.org/sites/default/files/vb-corporate/visitengland_national_accessible_scheme_serviced_standards.pdf >> >> >> The part that is amusing is not only that it fails WCAG 2.0 in areas, but how those fails are properly passes with a perceptually accurate model, such as APCA (the fact it’s a pdf notwithstanding). >> >> Here’s an example from the inside front cover, the text is white on red—for color deficient vision this is ideal—yet WCAG 2 insists that black on red is better. >> >> For comparison I created a matching version with black text—Black against red is notably worse, especially for common color vision deficiencies. WCAG 2 contrast presents conditions that are harmful to readability, particularly for those with color insensitive vision. This has led to a massive misunderstanding in the accessibility community as a result, with promotion of the mistaken belief that WCAG 2.x contrast is “doing something special” for CVD. It isn’t, at least not in a good way. >> >> This is not an isolated case, and it is one worth noting. >> >> <image001.png> >> >> >> >> >> >> P >> -- >> Patrick H. Lauke >> >> https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke >> https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux >> https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke >>
Received on Friday, 4 August 2023 05:39:55 UTC