Re: CfC: Issue 200

PS

Just noticed something. Current proposal in the minutes leaves out
3:1. Shouldn't the first sentence include 3:1

"the 7.1, 4.5:1, and 3.1 contrast rations referenced..."

OR simpler

"The contrast ratios referenced..."


Current proposal in the minutes leaves out 3:1
The 7:1 and 4.5:1 contrast ratios referenced in this Success Criteria are
intended to be treated as threshold values. When comparing the computed
contrast ratio to the Success Criteria ratio the computed values should not
be rounded (eg. 4.499:1 would not meet the 4.5:1 threshold).

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
Tel:  613.235.4902

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 Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 6:03 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

> +1
>
> I think a threshold value is the simplest solution for different number of
> significant digits (3:1 and 4.5:1) and its consistent with what I was
> thinking when I voted for those ratios 10 years ago. This is the minimum
> contrast and don't make that text any lighter on a light background.
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
> Tel:  613.235.4902
>
> 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 Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Chakravarthula, Srinivasu <
> srchakravarthula@informatica.com> wrote:
>
>> +1 to this and Agreed to CfC.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> -Vasu
>>
>> --
>>
>> *S*rinivasu* C*hakravarthula
>>
>> *L*ead *A*ccessibility *C*onsultant
>>
>> *Informatica <http://informatica.com/>* *B*usiness *S*olutions *P*vt *L*
>> td.,
>>
>> *W*ork: +91-80-4020-3760 | *C*ell: +91 99008 10881
>>
>> *W*ebsite <http://srinivasu.org/> | *A*ccessibility *B*log
>> <http://serveominclusion.com/> | *L*inkedIn
>> <http://linkedin.com/in/srinivasuc> | *T*witter
>> <http://twitter.com/CSrinivasu>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Gregg Vanderheiden RTF [mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 26, 2016 10:01 AM
>> *To:* James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com>
>> *Cc:* Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>; GLWAI Guidelines WG org <
>> w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: CfC: Issue 200
>>
>>
>>
>> Very interesting.    The two numbers have different degrees of accuracy
>> in them.      According to the same logic     2.499999 would fail     2.5
>> would pass.
>>
>>
>>
>> So the “no rounding” would seem to provide more consistent results.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now I can live with the decision even more..
>>
>>
>> *gregg*
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 25, 2016, at 10:30 PM, James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 3:1 has 1 less digits of accuracy so is 1 digit less of accuracy
>> appropriate when rounding in order to meet that? Can you please give
>> examples as to what is intended to meet and fail each of the ratios?
>>
>>
>>
>> To be honest I'm not sure anyone cares what we decide - we just need
>> something unambiguous so all the tool vendors can agree on results.
>>
>>
>> On Oct 25, 2016, at 19:16, Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Sorry I didnt see this earlier.   I don’t want to block consensus..  But
>> I had a lot to do with this provision and I believe that the numbers should
>> be taken at the accuracy that they are presented at.
>>
>>
>>
>> That is     4.5:1  has only one digit of accuracy.     So  4.499  is in
>> fact  4.5 at the degree of accuracy in the WCAG.
>>
>>
>>
>> But consensus is not   ‘what do I think it should be’   but   ‘can I live
>> with it’
>>
>>
>>
>> And I can live with it.
>>
>>
>>
>> *gregg*
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 25, 2016, at 4:43 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> CALL FOR CONSENSUS – ends Thursday October 27 at 5:00pm Boston time.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is a proposed response to an issue that was submitted.  The item was
>> surveyed, discussed on the WG call, and approved (
>> http://www.w3.org/2016/10/25-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item04).
>>
>>
>>
>> The original issue and proposed response: https://github.com/w
>> 3c/wcag/issues/200#issuecomment-256091343.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not
>> been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not
>> being able to live with” this position, please let the group know before
>> the CfC deadline.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> AWK
>>
>>
>>
>> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>>
>> Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
>>
>> Adobe
>>
>>
>>
>> akirkpat@adobe.com
>>
>> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>