British Tourist Authority, England’s national tourist board contrast discussion

The WCAG contrast failures found in the cited Tourism document such as white on red and white on gray and light blue on white are difficult for me to read.  The white on red is also almost painful for me to read.

I am thankful for a current WCAG 2.0 contrast model that has correctly flagged these combinations of colors that provide problematic contrast.  While the model is not perfect most of the time for me it seems to flag things that are difficult for me to read.  I agree that we need to evolve the model or start over with changes in technology – but simply removing something that does have benefit with a void is not something that would be helpful to me.

Best Regards,

Jonathan

From: Andrew Somers <andy@generaltitles.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 6:04 PM
To: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: CFC - Publish WCAG2ICT First Public Working Draft


On Aug 3, 2023, at 11:26 AM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk<mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk>> wrote:

"Continued promotion" or "dealing with the reality that WCAG has been either enshrined into, or referenced by, legislation around the world right at this point, so we're having to make do with the less-than-ideal situation out here in the real world"...


Hi Patrick.

Right, 1.4.3/1.4.11 specifically are not things that should be incorporated into statute law as they stand. That they have become such is setting actual accessibility backwards. While not good as voluntary guidelines, as elevated into “law” becames bad law. The 508 has reasonable exceptions, unfortunately the EU does not, and it needs to.

Something you may find amusing from a WCAG trash-panda perspective, is this guidebook on accessibility<https://www.visitbritain.org/sites/default/files/vb-corporate/visitengland_national_accessible_scheme_serviced_standards.pdf>  This booklet on accessibility from the British Tourist Authority, England’s national tourist board, This accessibility guide was created in 2011:

https://www.visitbritain.org/sites/default/files/vb-corporate/visitengland_national_accessible_scheme_serviced_standards.pdf



The part that is amusing is not only that it fails WCAG 2.0 in areas, but how those fails are properly passes with a perceptually accurate model, such as APCA (the fact it’s a pdf notwithstanding).

Here’s an example from the inside front cover, the text is white on red—for color deficient vision this is ideal—yet WCAG 2 insists that black on red is better.

For comparison I created a matching version with black text—Black against red is notably worse, especially for common color vision deficiencies. WCAG 2 contrast presents conditions that are harmful to readability, particularly for those with color insensitive vision. This has led to a massive misunderstanding in the accessibility community as a result, with promotion of the mistaken belief that WCAG 2.x contrast is “doing something special” for CVD. It isn’t, at least not in a good way.

This is not an isolated case, and it is one worth noting.

[cid:image001.png@01D9C645.A5469650]




P
--
Patrick H. Lauke

https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke

https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux

https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke