Re: CfC: Issue 200

I did a test of #777777 which is a threshold 4.48 contrast (on white) using
some current tools,
(Wave, aXe, CodeSniifer, JuicyStudio, Tenon, Snook, Chrome a11y)
when the issue first became apparent to me.

http://davidmacd.com/test/check-color.html

Some round up others don't.


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 9:04 AM, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
wrote:

> 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 <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
> *Sent: *Wednesday, October 26, 2016 12:33 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/
> 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
>
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>