W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > November 2007

Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Public Working Draft of May, 2007

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 21:20:52 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0711032120u70cef123ie1d857f64b409ac9@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Donald Johansson" <johansson@gulftel.com>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Dear Donald Johansson,

Thank you for your comments on the 17 May 2007 Public Working Draft of
the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/). The WCAG Working Group
has reviewed all comments received on the May draft, and will be
publishing an updated Public Working Draft shortly. Before we do that,
we would like to know whether we have understood your comments
correctly, and also whether you are satisfied with our resolutions.

Please review our resolutions for the following comments, and reply to
us by 19 November 2007 at public-comments-wcag20@w3.org to say whether
you are satisfied. Note that this list is publicly archived. Note also
that we are not asking for new issues, nor for an updated review of
the entire document at this time.

Please see below for the text of comments that you submitted and our
resolutions to your comments. Each comment includes a link to the
archived copy of your original comment on
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/, and may
also include links to the relevant changes in the WCAG 2.0 Editor's
Draft of May-October 2007 at

Thank you for your time reviewing and sending comments. Though we
cannot always do exactly what each commenter requests, all of the
comments are valuable to the development of WCAG 2.0.


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: Site listed in resources appears to have some issues
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Jun/0260.html
(Issue ID: 2091)
Original Comment:

The site listed as a resource in G17 and G18

juicystudio.com appears to return faulty values for colors entered.
The generated values does not match this document which is also listed
in the resources: http://trace.wisc.edu/contrast-ratio-examples/

Proposed Change:
juicystudio.com probably needs to doublecheck their application.

I have also made my own application for this, which you might consider
listing as a resource. This is available here:

The values generated with this matches the http://trace.wisc.edu
document for all values I have tested.

Thank you

Response from Working Group:

We checked with Juicy Studio and they were indeed  using the
constant 0.3928 instead of 0.03928, which they've now updated in all the
color contrast tools from Juicy Studio. The results are now correct.

We have added your application to the Resources for G17 and G18  and
also to the resource list on the understanding 1.4.3 and 1.4.5 pages.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 04:21:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:14:45 UTC