W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > March 2014

Re: avoid "color contrast"

From: Joshue O Connor <joshue.oconnor@cfit.ie>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 20:55:21 +0000
Message-ID: <5320C9B9.1000008@cfit.ie>
To: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
CC: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org, "EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>, WCAG Editors <team-wcag-editors@w3.org>
Hi Shawn,

> Please avoid the phrase "color contrast".

<chair hat off>
I'm happy to discuss this but it could be a big ask - essentially you 
are technically right but there is a common vernacular amongst 
developers and the term 'colour contrast' is well established as 'it' - 
largely based on the language traditionally used by WCAG it's worth noting.

Also it's worth noting that even if light intensity is measured in 
lumens, and variations within RGB values represent (on screen) what we 
know as colour - as a 'cowpath' the term 'colour contrast' already has a 
lot of traction and common understanding so to switch now - or attempt 
to switch could create more dissonance than it is worth.

My 2 cents

Josh

> Some places we've found it:
> *
> http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/visual-audio-contrast-contrast.html
>
> *
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20080430/visual-audio-contrast-contrast.html
>
>
> Additionally, several pages include "color contrast" in the Resources
> listings. We wonder if it would be worthwhile to add a note there, e.g.,
> something along the lines of what we have at
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/preliminary#contrast>: This accessibility
> requirement is sometimes called sufficient "color contrast"; however,
> that is incorrect  technically it's "luminance contrast"...
>
> Thanks,
> Shawn for EOWG
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 12 March 2014 20:55:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:17 UTC