W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org > April 2017

Re: Color Test: A formal proposal

From: David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 06:03:47 -0400
Message-ID: <CAAdDpDYUUV_LkjA5zezSnORwad65QbHZOjh5TkhJ6-0v1B-KgA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
Cc: Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>, "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
I think we also have to address the colour contrast issue. If the user
changes colours to less that 4.5:1 so it either disappears or is hard to
see, we can't call that a loss of information of functionality.

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 Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 5:59 AM, David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com> wrote:

> >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 <(613)%20806-9005>
>
> 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
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Received on Monday, 3 April 2017 10:04:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 27 April 2017 14:44:34 UTC