Updating the contrast value #1780
Conversation
|
I'd assert that it has no impact on the calculation. The value falls between 10/255 and 11/255 which falls outside of the values that are set below and above each version and thus the calculated values that could exist are not impacted by this change at all. |
not worried about end results being different. more in terms of somebody digging into the source code of a tool and being left baffled why that tool may have used that other value / why that particular value. |
|
I agree with the logic of mentioning the old value. But please delete |
|
I agree on removing "should". Both values will work and either can be used to meet the requirement as they provide the same result. |
@michaelc does this work for removing a bib entry?
|
All the changes were included and agreed today. @michael-n-cooper I've removed the references to the old sRGB standard. Anywhere we used it was in conjunction with the other one, which is the more up to date version. Does removing it from the json file and removing the instances of |
From AWK comment.
Use the corrected value being included in WCAG 2.2 spec - Reference: w3c/wcag#1780 As stated in the update that there should be "no practical effect on the calculations" - as can be seen by the minor adjustments in precision
Use the corrected value being included in WCAG 2.2 spec - Reference: w3c/wcag#1780 As stated in the update that there should be "no practical effect on the calculations" - as can be seen by the minor adjustments in precision
* Updating the contrast value * Rain's suggested wording * removing the SRGB reference @michaelc does this work for removing a bib entry? * Meeting updates. * Aligned understandings docs From AWK comment.
Closes #360, closes #1213