CORRECT OBSOLETE CODE THAT IS CAUSING PROBLEMS #568
Conversation
Okay, in lieu of pull request w3c#213, this pull request addresses Jeanne's concerns and also get the bod information away from any links. TO BE CLEAR: the document this pull request is correcting **was never supposed to be public facing and linked** per my understanding — but the correct code was deleted from the FPWD, yet in this doc was BAD OBSOLETE CODE that should have been replaced by the FPWD. This document is STILL LINKED, and now there are several instances of bade code in the wild as a result. For reasons that are unclear, the links to this BAD CODE keep popping up as if someone is attempting to sabotage this project. PLEASE PUSH THIS PULL REQUEST THROUGH. This supersedes the previous request (w3c#213) In THIS request, I left the code and only find the things that would have been fixed if the correct code was not deleted from the FPWD.
Myndex
added
the
Subgroup: Visual Contrast
|
Also, this is now showing an error I have not seen before:
Is there anything I need to do to correct this? I looks like some kind of authentication problem. Thank you Andy |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is a new procedure for getting changes into WCAG3 documents. We have to all updates to the Editor's draft approved by AGWG. We are doing that by putting them in branches and showing AGWG the branch for their approval.
Please make this a PR into a new w3c branch "visual-contrast-updates_as". I have set the branch up for you in case you do not have permissions for it. Once that is set up, we can put it on a survey to be approved by AGWG.
The ASCII art around the Deprecated sections is inaccessible and doesn't meet W3C styles for specs. A simple "This section has been depreciated" is acceptable. Is there a reason you are marking it up as Depreciated instead of removing it? It looked to me like it could be removed without harm. Am I misunderstanding?
|
@Myndex I will look into the ipr problem. A number of people have complained about that recently, so it may be a new process or a bug. |
Ok, I will move to that branch. When survey approved that branch will be applied to main and the linked document?
There is no ASCII art. The use of // is a standard method for commenting inside code blocks, which is where those are placed. This is a block of JS code.
Then I'm confused here Jeanne, as I've been asking that it be removed for over a year. I created PR #213 over a year ago where I did indeed delete the depreciated code that never should have been public facing. That pull request is still sitting there with no action taken. In the comments of that PR, you stated that you didn't want the code to be deleted. Therefore I created this new PR leaving the code in (with corrections) but clearly identifying the depreciated materials. The amount of damage that has been done to this project by having the incorrect code distributed in this way is difficult to estimate, but it has been a massive waste of my time and energy tracking down the developers that are using the incorrect code. Thank you, A |
| <p class="breadcrumb"><a href="../../guidelines/index.html">Silver</a> > <a href="../explainers/VisualContrast.html">Visual Contrast</a> > Select font characteristics and background colors to provide enough contrast </p> | ||
| <div class="guidanceBox"> | ||
| <h1>Select font characteristics and background colors to provide enough contrast for readability </h1> | ||
| <p class="breadcrumb"><a href="../../guidelines/index.html">Silver</a> > <a href="../explainers/VisualContrast.html">Visual Contrast</a> > DEPRECIATED </p> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
note that the correct term is "deprecated", not "depreciated"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah, well my dyslexia and low vision are exposed. This being a case where I type the word once and copy/paste it, the error is replicated. And naturally I looked up the etymology, and what you might find amusing is this stack answer from 2014, assuming before it made it into dictionaries: https://stackoverflow.com/a/24472108/10315269
ALSO this is not the live pull request, #570 is (actually the original I asked for was #213 from a year ago)....
| </ul> | ||
| <h2 id=""> THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT MAINTAINED </h2> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
having a heading that heads up no subsequent content is a bit illogical. suggest choosing another way to mark this up.
| ///// GITHUB: https://github.com/Myndex/SAPC-APCA | ||
| ///// | ||
|
|
||
| /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
not sure this sort of heavy-handed ASCII art approach is appropriate here, as it will result in an unnecessarily wordy and annoying/confusing output for screen reader users. suggest just keeping it short and simple and avoid "slash slash slash slash slash slash slash slash slash..."
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi Patrick, that was identical to the original code section in that part of the doc. What was added was nothte slashes just a change of the wordage and addition of the link texts. And this is not the actual live PR, #570 is.
|
|
||
| </dl> | ||
| <div><span></span> | ||
| <p>Predicted contrast is reported as a percentage using the methods in this guideline, based on the CSS color values in sRGB colorspace, and with device default antialiasing<sup>1</sup>. The <b>Tests</b> section has a lookup table for specific font and contrast combinations, but as a general guide:</p> | ||
| <div><span> /// DEPRECIATED /// /// DEPRECIATED /// /// DEPRECIATED /// |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
there's probably a much more stylish/sensible way of noting this rather than uppercase text with ASCII art separators. suggest looking at how deprecation notices are implemented in other specs (using CSS-styled blocks, rather than relying on this sort of presentational text approach)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi @patrickhlauke
Again, this is not the live PR, responding to Jeanne I removed those in PR #570. Also this is a code block, so HTML/CSS inside the code block is not appropriate.
The upshot here is that over a year ago I created PR #213 to remove this code completely as it was only a placeholder and never intended to be something that was widely linked to the public, which is what has happened. But because the correct code was deleted from the FPWD and other confusions, some developers have been using this incorrect code which was never intended to be a public facing canonical reference of any sort.
Unfortunately because of how Google has ranked this old link in searches that's what has eventually happened, creating confusion and problems for the early adopters and beta testers.
I've been trying to get this corrected for over a year, and my multiple requests have been completely ignored. This PR and now #570 are me "giving up" on PR #213 and trying to get at least a disclaimer warning on these pages, which people are widely linking to as if it was correct.
This directly addresses multiple issues filed here on the code repo all caused by this confusion. This has become a massive time and energy waste for me, tracing down developers who are unknowingly using and distributing the wrong code. It is almost as if someone is trying to sabotage this project.
Thank you,
Andy
|
I'm now lost as to what the "real" PR is versus what this PR is (if it's not a real PR, suggest closing it perhaps?) In any case, imagine those comments, where relevant, on whatever the "real" PR is |
As I said, it is #570 |
Okay, in lieu of pull request #213, this pull request addresses Jeanne's concerns and also gets the incorrect information away from links, and correctly marks this document as depreciated and not maintained.
TO BE CLEAR: the document this pull request is correcting was never supposed to be public facing and linked per my understanding, it was going to be replaced by the FPWD — but the correct code was inexplicably deleted from the FPWD, and in this doc was INCORRECT OBSOLETE CODE that should have been replaced at/before the FPWD is STILL LINKED, and now there are several instances of bad code in the wild as a result.
THIS IS CAUSING PROBLEMS
For reasons that are unclear, the links to this OBSOLETE CODE keep popping high in Google, and I am getting tired of chasing them down and getting these corrected, it's a massive waste of my time. The source of the problem is THIS DOCUMENT.
In THIS request**, I left the code** as Jeanne has requested, and only made minor fixes, but mainly I added a "depreciated" banner with a link to the CURRENT WCAG 3.0 working draft.
I believe that satisfies the stated issues for pull request #213, the previous pull request to fix this problem I submitted a YEAR AGO.
PLEASE PUSH THIS PULL REQUEST THROUGH. This supersedes and replaces the previous request (#213)
THANK YOU!!!
Andy