Edit comment LC-603 for Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

Quick access to

Previous: LC-538 Next: LC-585

Comment LC-603: Comment Shortname:; Commenter: Geoff Freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org> on behalf of WGBH National Center for Accessible Media; Message-id:; Section of the document concerned:

or; Refinement of the section concerned:; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Resolution status:
Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter; Response status:
No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):; Comment:
Part of Item:
Comment Type: TE
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

These comments also apply to 1.4.1:

1. Is it realistic to expect authors to do the math to figure out the luminosity contrast ratio?
2. Why isn\'t MathML used to represent the equations?
3. If the only difference between 1.4.1 and 1.4.3 is the ratio (5:1 vs 10:1), then drop one ratio and therefore one needless requirement.

Proposed Change:

1. Use MathML to represent the equations.
2. Eliminate either 1.4.1 or 1.4.3, preferably the latter.
3. Reconsider the expectation that authors will determine contrast through the use of the luminosity contrast ratio. Did anyone in the working group poll authors to see if this is realistic?; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes: [TEAMA] MathML question also raised in LC-854 This is basically 3 separate issues. Issue 1. It is not necessary for web authors to do math to figure out if they pass the luminosity (although they can if they want). The math is provided here simply as an explanation. It appears that we should put a note on the "How to meet... Key terms" that this mathematical formula is not required to meet the SC. There are tools that do this automatically. (See resources) Issue 2. (accept?) I believe that math ML was not used because ASCII was able to represent the formula acceptably. And (B) no one offered to do it in MathML. Perhaps someone should go to Neil Soiffer NeilS@DesSci.com and ask him to do it. Issue 3. Recommend {not-accept} ...The working group determined that there is a significant improvement of readability between 10:1 and 5:1 but that 5:1 was sufficient in most casts and 10:1 is very demanding, basically white on black or Vice versa. DONE Ben to look at feasability of including this as MathML and what level of support there is for this. luminosity contrast ratio in MathML: (http://tinyurl.com/h34ba) (example of how it fails in non-MathML browsers - http://tinyurl.com/k82js) - Many issues with need for plugins, cross-browser support, misleading results if MathML is not rendered correctly (ex. "R/FS" becomes "RFS" in Opera), etc. Also, no support in xmlspec for equations at this point in time. Recc. that we avoid presenting in MathML at this point in time and consider providing an alternative version of the definition in MathML. Discussed in the 03 August 2006 telecon: Resolution: Accept team a survey items which has unanimous consent: LC-603, LC-792, LC-854, LC-940, LC-1062, LC-1164, LC-1224 http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2006/08/03-wai-wcag-minutes.html DONE add a note to the intent section of 1.4.1 and 1.4.3 which reads, "Note: Refer to related resources for a list of tools that utilize the luminosity contrast ratio to analyze the contrast of Web content." DONE add an alternative to this definition in MathML by adding the following note: Note 3: A MathML version of the luminosity contrast ratio definition (http://tinyurl.com/h34ba) is available. XML updated 04 August.; Resolution: Authors do not have to use the luminosity contrast ratio to determine their contrast ratio. In the resources section, a list of tools have been provided that already do this. One uses an eye dropper and is very easy to use. We have added a note to the intent sections of both SC 1.4.3 (formerly 1.4.1) and SC 1.4.5 (formerly 1.4.3) that refers to the list of these tools to make it more obvious that these tools are available. Because support for MathML varies across browsers and platforms, because the information from the equations can be mis-presented in some cases, and because it was possible to represent the luminosity contrast ratio in ASCII, a MathML version of the equations was not included in the guidelines themselves. We have, however, added a note to the definition which points to a MathML version. Should support MathML change prior to publication, we will include this version in the guidelines themselves. The working group determined that there is a significant improvement of readability between 10:1 and 5:1 but that 5:1 was sufficient in most cases and 10:1 is very demanding, basically white on black or vice versa.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)