Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006

Dear Liz Danaherliz ,

Thank you for your comments on the 2006 Last Call Working Draft of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0 We appreciate the
interest that you have taken in these guidelines.

We apologize for the delay in getting back to you. We received many
constructive comments, and sometimes addressing one issue would cause
us to revise wording covered by an earlier issue. We therefore waited
until all comments had been addressed before responding to commenters.

This message contains the comments you submitted and the resolutions
to your comments. Each comment includes a link to the archived copy of
your original comment on, and may
also include links to the relevant changes in the updated WCAG 2.0
Public Working Draft at

PLEASE REVIEW the decisions  for the following comments and reply to
us by 7 June at to say whether you are
satisfied with the decision taken. Note that this list is publicly

We also welcome your comments on the rest of the updated WCAG 2.0
Public Working Draft by 29 June 2007. We have revised the guidelines
and the accompanying documents substantially. A detailed summary of
issues, revisions, and rationales for changes is at . Please see for more information about the current review.

Thank you,

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

Comment 1:

(Issue ID: LC-521)

Name: Liz Danaher
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 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:

Response from Working Group:

The color contrast measure that you cite in your comments is different
than the color contrast specified in the current WCAG 2.0. If you look
at How to meet 1.4.1, there are tools listed in the resource section
that will evaluate content using the new success criteria.

Despite the changes to the algorithm, your comment is still is valid
and some of the text on the home page would fail the WCAG 2.0
contrast criteria. Our hope is that these pages will be updated once
the new contrast requirements become a recommendation.

Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:41:00 UTC