Amend "contrast ratio" term - move out non-term notes to understanding docs#4400
Amend "contrast ratio" term - move out non-term notes to understanding docs#4400patrickhlauke wants to merge 12 commits into
Conversation
The term now (with 1.4.11) applies to both text and non-text content, but it seems incorrect to refer to specific testing methodology in the normative term rather than in the more specific SCs. 1.4.3 and 1.4.6 understanding (https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/contrast-minimum.html and https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/contrast-enhanced) already have a note about antialiasing, so it's redundant to have here)
The note about assuming a particular background is contentious at best. The note about "it is a failure" seems inappropriate in the normative term definition. A failure of what? This sort of note (if it were actually normatively intended) probably should go in the understanding document for a specific SC.
mentioning font smoothing here is irrelevant
✅ Deploy Preview for wcag2 ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
✅ Deploy Preview for wcag2 ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
in addition, changes the "need not" to "don't need to" ... much easier to parse/read
|
While this PR touches both normative and non-normative files, it makes sense to keep it as a single PR (as the non-normative changes wouldn't make sense without the normative ones) |
patrickhlauke
changed the title
|
Discussed quickly at today's TF meeting. Will give folks more time to digest this. To make the PR clearer, just added the more granular commit messages to the top comment/PR description. |
kfranqueiro
added
Non-Normative
|
It seems to me that the border for text (former note) has not got enough prominence in its new location (understanding): since it used to be a note, it might be a note on the understanding page as well. |
|
Updated the description above #4400 (comment) giving more context about the notes that were removed altogether |
|
Disagree with this change in the normative documents. This is a major change that we shouldn't be entertaining. If there is a specific issue with the notes we should edit the notes as errata. |
Notes are informative, not normative, so I don't believe their removal/moving them to a more appropriate informative location (the understanding docs) changes anything substantially. |
|
I don't care all too much whether these notes sit here (where they are more prominent but, also bulk up the glossary) or in Understanding... Given there is much else to do, I would rather shelve this. |
|
I'm with @awkawk on this. I appreciate that these notes seem like they belong in an understanding document. But by moving them we're downgrading their status from W3C approved content to AGWG documentation with no formal status. This introduces significant drift between WCAG and its translations. I think these notes are important enough for understanding how to measure this requirement that we should want to keep them in official translations, which we only get if we keep it in the WCAG itself. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Preview diff at glossary term in guidelines and at Intent in Understanding 1.4.3, 1.4.8, and 1.4.11. The substantive edits to Understanding in this PR are at the end of the Intent sections. (Just before “Rationale for the Ratios Chosen” with Understanding 1.4.3 and 1.4.8, and just before “User Interface Components” in Understanding 1.4.11.)
|
Discussed in last TF meeting. Agreed to move to the potential errata column for the next CfC |
7 participants
A different take compared to #1018
While reviewing that PR, it was noted that some of the existing notes in the term are inappropriate and incorrect, and are not necessarily related to the term itself but to SC testing.
This PR removes them altogether (which does mean this is a normative change), and moves the remaining notes to the understanding for contrast minimum, contrast enhanced, and one of them to non-text contrast — where they more logically belong as they don't define the term, but relate to evaluation and testing.
and yes, i'm aware this PR changes both normative and non-normative docs - which is why the check for this fails at the moment. however, as this is a "move content from normative to non-normative" i'd say it makes sense to keep it as a single PR rather than splitting into two separate ones.
Adding the more granular commit messages for context:
Remove smoothing/anti-aliasing note
The term now (with 1.4.11) applies to both text and non-text content, but it seems incorrect to refer to specific testing methodology in the normative term rather than in the more specific SCs. 1.4.3 and 1.4.6 understanding (https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/contrast-minimum.html and https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/contrast-enhanced) already have a note about antialiasing, so it's redundant to have here)
Remove the note about "It is a failure if no background color is specified"
This note is contentious and lacks context. There is already a failure technique Failure of Success Criterion 1.4.3, 1.4.6 and 1.4.8 due to specifying foreground colors without specifying background colors or vice versa that is referenced from 1.4.3, 1.4.6, 1.4.8 (but not 1.4.11), so the idea behind the note is still present (though that failure lacks nuance). But fundamentally, this note has no business being in the definition of "what is contrast ratio"
Remove the note about assuming a white background when none is defined
This note is in contradiction already with the other note above that was removed, and contradicts the failure technique about missing background, as it currently stands.
Move note about border for text into understanding
Move note about border for text into enhanced understanding
Tweak 1.4.11 note about anti-aliasing
mentioning font smoothing here is irrelevant