Re: Color Test: A formal proposal

>make sense?

Totally, that was my intent.  The SC language is pretty good right now
 think, in its latest iteration. The question is the random test issue.

Giving an auditor a random test which choses colours that the author didn't
test seems like a recipe for confusion. And we want to make sure that we
don't give the impression that an auditor can give the page a fail based on
a random test that the author didn't check for.



Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
Mobile:  613.806.9005

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
wrote:

> I think It does work David.
>
> RATIONALE:
> The SC only says that it must be possible to change the colors and you
> only need 1 success to prove that that is true.
> The SC does not require that ANY two choices would work.  Just that it is
> POSSIBLE to change them without loosing function .  It is up to the user to
> choose two colors that work for them.
>
> make sense?
>
>
> Gregg
>
>
> Gregg C Vanderheiden
> greggvan@umd.edu
>
>
>
> On Apr 1, 2017, at 7:07 PM, David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com> wrote:
>
> This test is saying the dev only has to test one colour but is responsible
> for all 256,000,000. The auditor can fail him on things he didn't test.
>
> It can't work like that.
>
> Then the developer could get sued or fired for not meeting the WCAG even
> though they did everything they needed.
>
> The way it should work is that the dev would to say in his statement of
> conformance, the values tested... just like "we tested with JAWS 18, on WIN
> and IE 11" and the auditor tests that. Now if the auditor decides to check
> something else and say, "hey I noticed this didn't work" that is a best
> practice statement. I do that all the time with devs
>
> Having said that, if one colour can be overridden successfully many others
> will...
>
> On Apr 1, 2017 3:58 PM, "Gregg C Vanderheiden" <greggvan@umd.edu> wrote:
>
>> Just FYI
>>
>> Technically — we don’t have any such things as “formal tests”  except for
>> TECHNIQUES.
>>
>>
>> This can’t be a formal test unless the SC says that you must do exactly
>> this - or rather  the SC must say  “  Content passes the following test"
>>
>> you put it forward as an informal test — but the SC is the only criterion
>> for passing the SC.  (that is what its name means—  success criterion.
>>
>> The WG COULD propose the test as a ‘sufficient’ test of the SC.   That is
>> — if you pass, you pass.
>> But you cannot say that if you fail you fail unless the SC says this
>> specifically.
>>
>> Gregg
>>
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden
>> greggvan@umd.edu
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 1, 2017, at 2:49 PM, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I proposed this color test.
>> > It should work.
>> > The colors are selected randomly so that they support a 4.5:1 ratio.
>> > This test should be sufficient.
>> > It tests two random color choices (one dark one light).
>> > The combination is most likely a mud color (light or dark).
>> > The test looks at dark on light and light on dark.
>> > It is significant that !important is left off the first test.
>> > It should be run  twice, without and with !important.
>> > The non-important will flush out element level style.
>> > The important will flush real erroneous cases.
>> >
>> > Look for colors that do not change.
>> > Loss of functionality, images disappear, icons dispensary
>> >
>> > If colors do not change add-in background-image: none.
>> >
>> > Pay attention to borders and padding. These may also need to be
>> specified.
>> >
>> > I would like to put this forward as a formal test.
>> >
>> > Wayne
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>