coshnaut wrote:

bump

episode 2

bump

i feel like by now we should have stopped bumping this

Zydrolic wrote:

Scratchdev57 wrote:

(#22)
Honestly, the best solution is let everyone customise the colours.

That'd make this a dupe however, and you know that as well.

Scratchdev57 wrote:

(#22)
It is a bit ugly, but who cares? You'll barely even see this message.

I'd rather appease people by going with it but honestly
why the frick does it matter if it looks ugly if its atleast more readable?
Currently it's quite a pain to read still

There are mixed people here in this forum. People who think it is will be more readable (most people) and people who think it is less readable and people who bumped the forum alot, however, whether we should add it depends on if it is worth adding it based on the workaround (which is using a browser extenstion I can't name), its effect (changing colours to make more readable), how much effort is required (little) and whether or not there is a better way based on previously mentioned factors. Due to this, I don't think we should increase the contrast, only because of the fact that I think it would be better to instead suggest a suggestion to allow users to customize the colours than this suggestion.

I actually like the example in the post better than the original.

Support. The original one is a little too hard to read in white over orange since I read in a light theme more than a dark theme, so it would help in contrast to see the message better if it were that color.

lgrov44 wrote:

(#65)
There are mixed people here in this forum. People who think it is will be more readable (most people) and people who think it is less readable and people who bumped the forum alot, however, whether we should add it depends on if it is worth adding it based on the workaround (which is using a browser extenstion I can't name), its effect (changing colours to make more readable), how much effort is required (little) and whether or not there is a better way based on previously mentioned factors. Due to this, I don't think we should increase the contrast, only because of the fact that I think it would be better to instead suggest a suggestion to allow users to customize the colours than this suggestion.

Customizing colors already has a thread so suggesting it here just CTRL+D's that suggestion - Just customizability is of course always the better solution, but this is already more readable and fails zero WCAG standards.

bump

bump

Zydrolic wrote:

lgrov44 wrote:

(#65)
There are mixed people here in this forum. People who think it is will be more readable (most people) and people who think it is less readable and people who bumped the forum alot, however, whether we should add it depends on if it is worth adding it based on the workaround (which is using a browser extenstion I can't name), its effect (changing colours to make more readable), how much effort is required (little) and whether or not there is a better way based on previously mentioned factors. Due to this, I don't think we should increase the contrast, only because of the fact that I think it would be better to instead suggest a suggestion to allow users to customize the colours than this suggestion.

Customizing colors already has a thread so suggesting it here just CTRL+D's that suggestion - Just customizability is of course always the better solution, but this is already more readable and fails zero WCAG standards.

Yes, but do you think that if there is a better way to do something, you should at least do that instead, or that, in this case, if there is something better to suggest, you should suggest that instead? Also, if something better is rejected or already has a thread, shouldn't the attention be brought to that thread as if it was rejected, the original thread should probably be rejected too and if it wasn't, it would solve the issue?

lgrov44 wrote:

(#71)
Yes, but do you think that if there is a better way to do something, you should at least do that instead, or that, in this case, if there is something better to suggest, you should suggest that instead? Also, if something better is rejected or already has a thread, shouldn't the attention be brought to that thread as if it was rejected, the original thread should probably be rejected too and if it wasn't, it would solve the issue.

i had a stroke trying to read this
this suggestion would also be a lot faster and easier to implement, and still does a pretty good job (at least imo) of solving the issue.

Well, the main issue is that it is not very readable and how readable it is depends on people's preferences (As shown in the graph below), however, most prefer black and white, for this case, yellow/white and dark orange or red and white, but specificly what colour pair is typically best doesn't really matter. If you were to say that one colour pair is more readable, that would apply to a certain group of people. The graph is limited on the used color pairs, however, shows that not everyone has the same color preferences. There will always be people who do not like the colour pairs. So it seems to me like it would be better to allow people to customize their colours, after all, it would solve the problem of people not entirely agreeing on a specific colour pair.


Credit: https://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2012/text-customization/r11

lgrov44 wrote:

(#71)
Yes, but do you think that if there is a better way to do something, you should at least do that instead, or that, in this case, if there is something better to suggest, you should suggest that instead? Also, if something better is rejected or already has a thread, shouldn't the attention be brought to that thread as if it was rejected, the original thread should probably be rejected too and if it wasn't, it would solve the issue?

Yes, however that does not mean alternatives should be ruled out - While that basically resolves it all, this is not only just a literal 3 letter change (#FFF –> #000) in the CSS styling, but also does not fail WCAG standards either, compared to the current scheme, which just completely fails.

And again, just because a better solution exists does not mean alternatives should not be considered either. Both of these resolve an issue - This, is a smaller one.

lgrov44 wrote:

(#73)
Well, the main issue is that it is not very readable and how readable it is depends on people's preferences (As shown in the graph below), however, most prefer black and white, for this case, yellow/white and dark orange or red and white, but specificly what colour pair is typically best doesn't really matter. If you were to say that one colour pair is more readable, that would apply to a certain group of people. The graph is limited on the used color pairs, however, shows that not everyone has the same color preferences. There will always be people who do not like the colour pairs. So it seems to me like it would be better to allow people to customize their colours, after all, it would solve the problem of people not entirely agreeing on a specific colour pair.

-snip-
Credit: https://www.w3.org/WAI/RD/2012/text-customization/r11

It's obvious that customizing the color freely is a win for everyone - And that not all pairs are best for everyone. I get that, but even then the current one is a complete failure to WCAG standards; I'm unable to word this any better so I'm probably looking bad, but I digress.

From anyone I've asked (offsite) they said black combination was a win, and I have not seen anyone that said that the white combo is better.

And again, this is still just an alternative to that suggestion, and this is a mere 3 character change in the CSS file.

Zydrolic wrote:

lgrov44 wrote:

(#71)
snip

Yes, however that does not mean alternatives should be ruled out - While that basically resolves it all, this is not only just a literal 3 letter change (#FFF –> #000) in the CSS styling, but also does not fail WCAG standards either, compared to the current scheme, which just completely fails.

And again, just because a better solution exists does not mean alternatives should not be considered either. Both of these resolve an issue - This, is a smaller one.

lgrov44 wrote:

(#73)
snip

It's obvious that customizing the color freely is a win for everyone - And that not all pairs are best for everyone. I get that, but even then the current one is a complete failure to WCAG standards; I'm unable to word this any better so I'm probably looking bad, but I digress.

From anyone I've asked (offsite) they said black combination was a win, and I have not seen anyone that said that the white combo is better.

And again, this is still just an alternative to that suggestion, and this is a mere 3 character change in the CSS file.

You're not looking bad, it's just that there is a suggestion to argue about and we, without much violence or profanity of course, are arguing for the side we seperately agree on. That is supposed to happen. Nevertheless, I would personally prefer the white and orange/red, not because you said you haven't seen anyone that said it was better or that I have a disability affecting vision but because I truthfully think that. Regardless, I do believe that the current one may be more unreadable to some but not to others with some examples affecting more people than others, thus your suggestion is very reasonable and I do think that it should be changed, what the specific color pair is or how it works. I do have to ask you though, do you think it would be better to have most people or almost everyone (except for blind people or people with too severe disabilites affecting vision of course) to be able to say that it is at least readable enough to them?

Also, yes, even if there are alternatives, it doesn't mean we shouldn't consider this one, that is true. It is just that it is related in reasoning to this, so is probably useful to this and to whether or not this suggestion should be done.
(why do i have to write so long sometimes…)

This needs to be done RIGHT NOW! The website could get sued and taken down for breaking UN WCAG guidelines.

<0-0::sensing>//This is Charles; he protects my signature from evil kumquats.
when I'm spawned::events hat//This is the code Charles' brain runs on.
forever
if <[100] > (distance to [an evil kumquat v])> then
delete the evil kumquat::control
end
end

The contrast between the black Text is actually lower than the contrast between that background and the white text

EDawg2011 wrote:

This needs to be done RIGHT NOW! The website could get sued and taken down for breaking UN WCAG guidelines.

No, that’s not how that works

website in OP wrote:

What does a failing grade mean?
The grading uses a combination of color contrast, text size and text weight. A fail simply means that the color combination offers some visual strain to the person seeing it and should be avoided if possible.

It says nothing about it being not allowed, all it says is it should be avoided


Also scratch is based in the US so why would a random “law” in Europe effect them

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

EDawg2011 wrote:

This needs to be done RIGHT NOW! The website could get sued and taken down for breaking UN WCAG guidelines.

No, that’s not how that works

website in OP wrote:

What does a failing grade mean?
The grading uses a combination of color contrast, text size and text weight. A fail simply means that the color combination offers some visual strain to the person seeing it and should be avoided if possible.

It says nothing about it being not allowed, all it says is it should be avoided


Also scratch is based in the US so why would a random “law” in Europe effect them

Scratch turned purple; if it didn't, the ADA could've sued them.
Sorry that I got it wrong.

<0-0::sensing>//This is Charles; he protects my signature from evil kumquats.
when I'm spawned::events hat//This is the code Charles' brain runs on.
forever
if <[100] > (distance to [an evil kumquat v])> then
delete the evil kumquat::control
end
end

EDawg2011 wrote:

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

EDawg2011 wrote:

This needs to be done RIGHT NOW! The website could get sued and taken down for breaking UN WCAG guidelines.

No, that’s not how that works

website in OP wrote:

What does a failing grade mean?
The grading uses a combination of color contrast, text size and text weight. A fail simply means that the color combination offers some visual strain to the person seeing it and should be avoided if possible.

It says nothing about it being not allowed, all it says is it should be avoided


Also scratch is based in the US so why would a random “law” in Europe effect them

Scratch turned purple; if it didn't, the ADA could've sued them.
Sorry that I got it wrong.

They turned purple because it was better contrast for the white text. it wasn’t because they could have been sued
This is suggesting to change the text color to be worse than the old blue ones contrast

Welp, this is getting long lol

lgrov44 wrote:

(#75)
You're not looking bad, it's just that there is a suggestion to argue about and we, without much violence or profanity of course, are arguing for the side we seperately agree on. That is supposed to happen. Nevertheless, I would personally prefer the white and orange/red, not because you said you haven't seen anyone that said it was better or that I have a disability affecting vision but because I truthfully think that.

Fair enough.

lgrov44 wrote:

(#75)
Regardless, I do believe that the current one may be more unreadable to some but not to others with some examples affecting more people than others, thus your suggestion is very reasonable and I do think that it should be changed, what the specific color pair is or how it works.

Personally I can't really come up with another combo here, the first thing I can really think about is decreasing it to dark.

lgrov44 wrote:

(#75)
I do have to ask you though, do you think it would be better to have most people or almost everyone (except for blind people or people with too severe disabilites affecting vision of course) to be able to say that it is at least readable enough to them?

Honestly I can't really come up with an answer.
I'd say almost everyone no matter a disability - The thing is that I'd also try looking for a better combo but I really just can't come up with a better one.

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

(#77)
The contrast between the black Text is actually lower than the contrast between that background and the white text

I'd been argued offsite that technically the contrast ratio is increasing, so I can't really make up my mind on that
I'll retitle in a bit

EDawg2011 wrote:

(#76)
This needs to be done RIGHT NOW! The website could get sued and taken down for breaking UN WCAG guidelines.

In the EU*

cookieclickerer33 wrote:

(#78)

Also scratch is based in the US so why would a random “law” in Europe effect them

Not law; It's a standard.

I haven't done due diligence on that honestly, however AFAIK you can get blocked in the EU if you don't abide by it - Take me with a grain of salt, I can be remembering wrong.

EDawg2011 wrote:

(#79)
Scratch turned purple; if it didn't, the ADA could've sued them.

I'm arguing against this, Scratch, being the largest all-ages coding platform, definitely wouldn't have went under the radar for years and have to do it now.
But then again I'm too lost myself to try and argue.