W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > May 2006

WCAG 2.0 Comment Submission

From: WCAG 2.0 Comment Form <nobody@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 8 May 2006 10:47:32 +0000 (GMT)
To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Message-Id: <20060508104732.B877947BA1@mojo.w3.org>

Name: Liz Danaher
Email: liz.danaher@dwpdevelopment.net
Document: TD
Item Number: (none selected)
Part of Item: Related Techniques
Comment Type: TE
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):

I hope you can help clarify something for me. I work on a UK government website and we\'ve recently been checking the site to ensure our colours comply with W3C checkpoint 2.2. We found your suggested algorithms here:


and subsequently found that some of our colours fail the algorithms for brightness and contrast. However, on checking your own site I also found that the w3.org homepage fails in some areas too.

eg. white text on biege background, brightness = 90 (fail), contrast = 306 (fail)

white text on blue background, brightness = 128 (ok), contrast = 362 (fail)

So I was just wondering, were you thinking of adding any caveats to the checkpoint 2.2, to reassure developers that if their font is above a certain size and/or weight then the algorithms may change. I do realise that you say it\'s only a \"suggested algorithm\" anyway, but I\'m afraid our bosses are saying we must comply with it, and although our text is also bold and large like yours, we\'re facing having to redesign the whole colour scheme of our site.

I\'d be very grateful if you could provide me with any more advice that you have on this subject so I can work out whether my colours are actually passable or not.

Thanks very much in advance!


Liz Danaher

Proposed Change:
Received on Monday, 8 May 2006 10:47:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:14:40 UTC