- From: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 11:38:28 +0100
- To: "'Adam Solomon'" <adam.solomon2@gmail.com>, <rcorominas@technosite.es>, "'David MacDonald'" <david100@sympatico.ca>, "'Gregg Vanderheiden'" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Cc: "'WCAG'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi all, yes. Firefox and IE allow users to override all given css colors but not bg images. The overriding of bg images (they are not visible) is happening automatically when Windows OS are used and afaik just when Windows OS are used. This 'behaviour' of Windows is covered in F3 (see the note). The overriding of all colors either in browsers like FF or IE or system-wide for example with the Windows high contrast mode and the two SCs of WCAG 2.0 for contrast are reflecting imo the needs of different groups of people with visual disabilities. Some visual disabilities - for example Retinitis Pigmentosa (RP) - are leading to light and/or glare sensitivitiy. Some other visual impairments or disabilities make it hard to discriminate colors when contrast is not sufficient for the person, but not in a way that own color schemes are needed. What about other formats? All examples of F24 are referring to HTML-pages. My personal opinion is that F24 should not be a failure as long as we speak about FF and IE with their possibilities to override all css colors with one more click in the settings or Windows high contrast mode. But I also think that it needs a deeper look, because not all browsers allow users to override all css-colors and probably it is still a failure when using other OS than Windows. Which I think has to be tested. If this would be the case (I can't check the HTML-examples in other OS) probably the failures will be failures but would need a lot of notes for different user agents. Ramón brought in different formats and I think this is an important aspect which is not covered explicitly in F24 at this moment. Just short (ok, hopefully short ;-) ) and when we think about PDF. When switching Windows high contrast mode on it has no effect on the PDF itself just on the menu and the bookmarks (Adobe Reader). PDF Readers like Adobe, Foxit and the new VIP-Reader are coming with options for own color schemes and/or high contrast mode(s). BUT: The contrast mode in Adobe Reader is not a success story, cause it is not simply not working well. Sometimes the entire PDF appears black/black, sometimes 'just' parts of the PDF appearing black/black. Which is in documents I've tested not happening when using the contrast mode of for example Foxit-Reader or VIP-Reader. Finding out under which circumstances a document appears (partly) black/black in Adobe Reader seems to be a puzzle or a Sisyphus task. Sometimes it seems to lie in the used typeface (embedded correctly or not), sometimes the reason lies in the used list-points and sometimes it seems to be the combination of list-points with the Word-Version used before converted. In the last months I've tested around ten PDF where this happens in Adobe Reader in Foxit-Reader. Not one of the tested documents failed in the contrast mode of Foxit-Reader. So if F24 covers also PDF the question is: what could under these circumstances be the testing procedure? A PDF might not be testable in Adobe Reader - not because of specified colors but probably because of the typeface, some of used types of list--points and ???? but it might not fail in Foxit-Reader and/or the new VIP-Reader. In case the whole text appears also in Adobe Reader's contrast mode, what happened with a PDF when colors are specified? I've tested a small text written in Word 2010 with following colors: paragraphs in blue, orange, automatic and purple and converted the text to PDF. I've made the test under the following scenario and with Adobe Reader and Foxit Reader: - Windows high contrast mode (default, which is white text on black background): ON - before opening the PDF - Accessibility options in Adobe Reader and Foxit Reader: use windows color scheme - Result for Adobe Reader: All text is white with black background - Result for Foxit Reader: automatic text is white with black background and all colored text is grey on black ("only change the content" has to be deactivated) So: Under this scenario defining the color of a text or using automatic has no effect in Adobe Reader and a "small" effect in Foxit Reader. It works fine in both PDF-Readers (as long as a text is visible in Adobe Reader's contrast mode) when using "automatic", which I think is not what F24 is about. There are of course other possible testing scenarios. This just for to show, that the result depends on the Reader, which is - if PDF is covered by this failure - tricky when it comes to the testing procedure of the failure. Hope this all makes sense Cheers Kerstin -------------------------------------------------------------------- Kerstin Probiesch - Freie Beraterin Barrierefreiheit, Social Media, Projektleitung Kantstraße 10/19 | 35039 Marburg Tel.: 06421 167002 E-Mail: mail@barrierefreie-informationskultur.de Web: http://www.barrierefreie-informationskultur.de XING: http://www.xing.com/profile/Kerstin_Probiesch Von: Adam Solomon [mailto:adam.solomon2@gmail.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 12. Dezember 2013 15:53 An: rcorominas@technosite.es; David MacDonald; Gregg Vanderheiden Cc: WCAG Betreff: Re: F24 - contrast Firefox and ie (and perhaps others) allow the user to override css colors AND bg images - so does that mean that to fulfill the criterion an author would simply have to use a technology which works in modern browsers? (even if the css colors failed the contrast ratio) - essentially saying that we don't have to check contrast on web pages anymore On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 8:39 PM, Ramón Corominas <rcorominas@technosite.es> wrote: Hi, David and all, Windows high contrast mode changes any foreground colour to the selected "automatic" text and any background colour to the selected automatic background colour (remember that Windows has different high contrast modes, not all of them use dark backgrounds). In any case, links are not changed to the automatic foreground colour, but to the default link text, which sometimes can provoke difficulties. Nevertheless, most users of high contrast that I know also change this link colour to meet their needs, either in the operating system or in the browser itself (browsers usually have an option to override system colours). However, in technologies different from HTML, colours are not managed the same, and for example Word 2010 changes foreground colours to "automatic", but leave background colours as defined by the author, which in many cases provoke "white over light gray"; in addition, I think Adobe Reader does not change any colour unless the reflow option is used. So, if the Failure only applies to HTML, then it should probably be removed, but if it applies to any technology, it is still valid. Regards, Ramón. David wrote: > The history of this is to enable users to *switch* colours (black to > white and vice versa) without the hard coded colours preventing then > change... so it black switches to white in the background but the > foreground doesn’t switch then you have black text on black > background... this is one of those success criteria that we will want to > look closely at, because as far as I can tell AT that switches colours > such as zoomtext will override even hard coded colours and successfully > make the change, We would have to check Windows high contrast mode, but > I think it does the same thing... so I question whether we should > continue to fail it... > > >> >> is F24 - http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20130905/F24 >> >> a failure even if the actual contrast meets the minimum contrast >> requirement ratio? In other words, if an author were to specify black >> text color in css (and left the default background-color of say white) >> where the ratio meets the success criterion de facto, would this still >> fail since no bgcolor was specified in the css (because the user could >> run into problems if he did choose a different default background color >> in his browser settings)?
Received on Saturday, 14 December 2013 10:38:58 UTC