- From: Lea Verou <lea@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 17:07:55 +0300
- To: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
- Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Hi David, Thank you for your input. I believe this should be addressed as a separate guideline. I've started another thread about variable color backgrounds [1]. We cannot assume that just because the background is semi-transparent, it will be overlaid over a variable color background. For example, many designers use semi-transparent white or black on top of solid colors, to create lighter and darker variants while still being able to change the base color with one edit. [1]: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ig/2012JulSep/0329.html Lea Verou W3C developer relations http://w3.org/people/all#lea ✿ http://lea.verou.me ✿ @leaverou On Sep 6, 2012, at 23:06, David Woolley wrote: > Lea Verou wrote: >> On Sep 6, 2012, at 14:48, Marc Haunschild wrote: >>> Hi Lea, >>> >>> now I got it, I guess - its about how to calculate it, to change the semitransparent layer automatically to produce a satisfying contrast ratio? >> Kind of. Think of it this way: >> - We know the text color >> - We know the (semi-transparent) background color >> - We DON’T know what's going to be under that. > I think you are missing a factor here. The standard colour contrast rules assume a background with no high spatial frequencies. If you overlay on an image, without using alpha 1 for both the text and a halo, any high spatial frequencies in the image will make it more difficult to read the text, so you need a higher minimum contrast. > > > -- > David Woolley > Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. > RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam, > that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work. > >
Received on Friday, 7 September 2012 14:08:04 UTC