Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Working Draft of December, 2007

>  Comment 1: Minimum contrast needed for default layout in case
>  1.4.3 is met via a contrast control
>  Source:
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0056.html
>  (Issue ID: 2434)
>  Status: VERIFIED / PARTIAL/OTHER
>
>
>  You seem to have somewhat misunderstood our proposal: we are not
>  suggesting that 1.4.3 should be moved to level A.
>
>  But we do think that the success criterion should be slightly
>  stricter and require the default layout to have a contrast ratio
>  of at least 3:1, even if a contrast control is provided.
>
>  This would be in line with note 4 in the glossary item on alternate
> versions: "Each version should be as conformant as possible."
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20071211/#conforming-alternate-versiondef
>
---------------------------------------------
Response from Working Group:
---------------------------------------------
We think there must be some misunderstanding, since a 3:1 contrast
ratio would be less, rather than more, strict that the current 5:1
contrast ratio.

A Web page that is as conformant as possible would meet SC 1.4.6 and
would have a 7:1 contrast ratio. However, at Level AA this is only
advisory, and a 5:1 ratio would conform.


Thanks again for the interest that you have taken in these guidelines.
Could we ask you to let us know whether or not you are satisfied with
this response by Wed, April 9?

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

Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 21:53:39 UTC