- From: David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 06:03:47 -0400
- To: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
- Cc: Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>, "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAdDpDYUUV_LkjA5zezSnORwad65QbHZOjh5TkhJ6-0v1B-KgA@mail.gmail.com>
I think we also have to address the colour contrast issue. If the user changes colours to less that 4.5:1 so it either disappears or is hard to see, we can't call that a loss of information of functionality. Cheers, David MacDonald *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.* Mobile: 613.806.9005 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 Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 5:59 AM, David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com> wrote: > >make sense? > > Totally, that was my intent. The SC language is pretty good right now > think, in its latest iteration. The question is the random test issue. > > Giving an auditor a random test which choses colours that the author > didn't test seems like a recipe for confusion. And we want to make sure > that we don't give the impression that an auditor can give the page a fail > based on a random test that the author didn't check for. > > > > Cheers, > David MacDonald > > > > *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.* > Mobile: 613.806.9005 <(613)%20806-9005> > > 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 Sun, Apr 2, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu> > wrote: > >> I think It does work David. >> >> RATIONALE: >> The SC only says that it must be possible to change the colors and you >> only need 1 success to prove that that is true. >> The SC does not require that ANY two choices would work. Just that it is >> POSSIBLE to change them without loosing function . It is up to the user to >> choose two colors that work for them. >> >> make sense? >> >> >> Gregg >> >> >> Gregg C Vanderheiden >> greggvan@umd.edu >> >> >> >> On Apr 1, 2017, at 7:07 PM, David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com> wrote: >> >> This test is saying the dev only has to test one colour but is >> responsible for all 256,000,000. The auditor can fail him on things he >> didn't test. >> >> It can't work like that. >> >> Then the developer could get sued or fired for not meeting the WCAG even >> though they did everything they needed. >> >> The way it should work is that the dev would to say in his statement of >> conformance, the values tested... just like "we tested with JAWS 18, on WIN >> and IE 11" and the auditor tests that. Now if the auditor decides to check >> something else and say, "hey I noticed this didn't work" that is a best >> practice statement. I do that all the time with devs >> >> Having said that, if one colour can be overridden successfully many >> others will... >> >> On Apr 1, 2017 3:58 PM, "Gregg C Vanderheiden" <greggvan@umd.edu> wrote: >> >>> Just FYI >>> >>> Technically — we don’t have any such things as “formal tests” except >>> for TECHNIQUES. >>> >>> >>> This can’t be a formal test unless the SC says that you must do exactly >>> this - or rather the SC must say “ Content passes the following test" >>> >>> you put it forward as an informal test — but the SC is the only >>> criterion for passing the SC. (that is what its name means— success >>> criterion. >>> >>> The WG COULD propose the test as a ‘sufficient’ test of the SC. That >>> is — if you pass, you pass. >>> But you cannot say that if you fail you fail unless the SC says this >>> specifically. >>> >>> Gregg >>> >>> Gregg C Vanderheiden >>> greggvan@umd.edu >>> >>> >>> >>> > On Apr 1, 2017, at 2:49 PM, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > I proposed this color test. >>> > It should work. >>> > The colors are selected randomly so that they support a 4.5:1 ratio. >>> > This test should be sufficient. >>> > It tests two random color choices (one dark one light). >>> > The combination is most likely a mud color (light or dark). >>> > The test looks at dark on light and light on dark. >>> > It is significant that !important is left off the first test. >>> > It should be run twice, without and with !important. >>> > The non-important will flush out element level style. >>> > The important will flush real erroneous cases. >>> > >>> > Look for colors that do not change. >>> > Loss of functionality, images disappear, icons dispensary >>> > >>> > If colors do not change add-in background-image: none. >>> > >>> > Pay attention to borders and padding. These may also need to be >>> specified. >>> > >>> > I would like to put this forward as a formal test. >>> > >>> > Wayne >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >> >
Received on Monday, 3 April 2017 10:04:21 UTC