Color Contrast (was RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2 - which has long since been lost in this thread)

…and yet, as we’ve seen already on this thread, increasing contrast negatively affects other user-groups (COGA), which effectively leaves us with a real dilemma: how do we address the needs of both groups? Can it be done simultaneously? Is color contrast issues an outlier here, or do we envision other emergent SC that may cause the same or similar discrepancies?

 

Off the top of my head, I could perhaps envision a new Success Criteria that says something along the lines of “Page Content [sic] MUST allow the end user to adjust contrast between the ranges of ___ (whatever is a reasonable low-end for COGA needs) and ___ (whatever is a reasonable high-end for LV, etc.)”  - in other words mandating customization-ability of the page/site in question. One possible Technique would be to offer the end user the ability to select a “skin” or color scheme upon first visit (with perhaps setting a cookie to remember the user’s choice?...  I don’t know, I’m thinking out loud here…)

 

What I would certainly bristle at however would be something along the lines of:



SC 1.4.3 (and/or) 

SC 1.4.3.1LV (and/or) 

SC 1.4.3.2COGA  (and/or)
SC 1.4.3.3MOBILE

 

…that to me is a recipe for confusion and non-adoption.



(Slightly off-tangent – for a thread already way off tangent – I *could* envision “extending” SC 1.4.3 to cover icons and other key actionable graphics on a page, which is currently not covered at all by WCAG 2.0: now *THAT* I could see as a SC 1.4.3.1 sub-set/sub-section)

 

JF

 

From: Léonie Watson [mailto:tink@tink.uk] 
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 4:17 PM
To: 'John Foliot' <john.foliot@deque.com>; 'Katie Haritos-Shea' <ryladog@gmail.com>
Cc: 'David MacDonald' <david100@sympatico.ca>; 'CAE-Vanderhe' <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>; 'Jason J White' <jjwhite@ets.org>; 'Sailesh Panchang' <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>; 'Andrew Kirkpatrick' <akirkpat@adobe.com>; 'GLWAI Guidelines WG org' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2

 

From: John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com] 
Sent: 22 February 2016 19:20
"The fact that a TF that is looking specifically at issues related to Low Vision users (or Cognitive users, or Mobile users – which sort of is everybody) helps bring focus to those types of needs, and ensures that the next-gen WCAG addresses shortcomings that specifically affects that group, but I will suggest that increasing the contrast requirements [sic] will benefit not only LV users, but perhaps Mobile users and Seniors as well, so making it a “Low Vision” Success Criteria in name feels (to me) wrong."

 

+1

 

I think it will also cause confusion. The 2.0 SC is intended to provide sufficient contrast for people with low vision. If an extension SC provides a better recommendation, it will effectively render the original SC obsolete.

 

Updating guidance is progress and is a good thing (in many respects it's already long overdue), but trying to have conflicting SC exist in the same time/space seems like we're asking for trouble.

 

Léonie.

 

-- 

@LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem