- From: Bruce Bailey <Bailey@Access-Board.gov>
- Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2020 18:05:14 +0000
- To: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>, WCAG list <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- CC: 508 <508@Access-Board.gov>
> I for one am extremely nervous about making *any* normative changes that would have a backward impact on WCAG 2.0. Right, and you are not the only one with this concern of course! This would be a long discussion, and I think we may have run out the clock on the opportunity to have such a discussion. > Bruce, can you provide an example? The most black-and-white example I think is that our formula for relative luminance used an out-of-date reference and, consequently, an incorrect numerical constant in the threshold value. http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#dfn-relative-luminance In three places, 0.03928 should be 0.04045. The good news is that, owing to rounding, there is no difference for any two 32 bit colors. I feel rather strongly that we should make the correction. Further, I have not heard any *good* (IMHO) rationalizations for not making the correction. But to be clear, I can live with not making this correction. See: http://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/360 It is serious flaw that the phrasing used in 1.2.1, 1.2.2, and 1.2.3 is not consistent with structurally similar SC 1.2.5, 1.2.6, 1.2.7, and 1.2.8. Compare www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#captions-prerecorded versus www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#audio-description-prerecorded Because 1.2.5 is AA, the issue does comes up a good bit in actual practice. Alastair even got caught by the divergent wording, so that is pretty good evidence that there is problem! See: http://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/796
Received on Tuesday, 7 January 2020 18:05:20 UTC