RE: CfC: Issue 200

Ø  Has anyone confirmed that the tools used to get these contrast ratios do or do not round up without us knowing?

This is something I have made a note to check on internally.  I’d assume this will be something that needs to be evaluated on  a tool by tool basis and may need a tweak.  My guess is that most tools use two significant digits and allow rounding after that.

Jonathan

From: alands289@gmail.com [mailto:alands289@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 8:34 AM
To: Gregg Vanderheiden RTF; James Nurthen
Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick; GLWAI Guidelines WG org
Subject: RE: CfC: Issue 200

Has anyone confirmed that the tools used to get these contrast ratios do or do not round up without us knowing?

Alan

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Gregg Vanderheiden RTF<mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 12:33 AM
To: James Nurthen<mailto:james.nurthen@oracle.com>
Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>; GLWAI Guidelines WG org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/w3c/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<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>
http://twitter.com/awkawk