-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 The pink on purple doesn't look accessible. I.e. there is too low contrast. Please try to make sure WCAG 2.0 is adhered to as strictly as possible in order to ensure universal design that doesn't discriminate against people with disabilities. Thanks to David for working on this! - -- Alexander alexander@plaimi.net https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJXTAA7AAoJENQqWdRUGk8BWDsP/3R7h6MTLl8h8TYIXQFSLnUy bcvlcKZjhASa0ZYI0SSlrcIVWAcgX8kr6gbNjzxTuEQzfs+hOwMJF8BkmwzYI+bL dKhOr4C77TA22rJviyvSU89IUZRPG/Mjwe9jURFILCfiHTYYhnKCvkPke8kIEy99 VNLDdry41sV7EYv3ICuxxAk+0LU4qD5QJFpxzPy0Td5QHUgQF52XgdukakZbmsSk wHvbrhJP13SSaKyC0c8Zsvc7fmBUEszvCK5ae6CDNsIaUtHTyh2fKmSDHAxDjE7l R2iXcz6MjnV8ewu6d9lZ0VOETj38NXdOEC5Rmo+WT7J23x0+txNTH4vZUFQXyc5e vQVszMZGoWCB5bPieBSz7xKa9JX2kGV9EYgrDoPG3wtYrvEqIJrqy1Un/V8BEKpX REC3sS1lx6wI9vY0l1dWx6q0sNNfHA6eCSMp2Ay6E8ZZcuWUeUO7YPnFI55CB796 FtSgUPQlap0sp8fFxHGG7vfkCLk1iOWKFASV7fiUBehwuUWAWedCwOCOrUU8pfy5 egAE0fE/S6h2KkvHjnvbJljLib0Gdli04rkaFIDVLDfhQO0+JrMxrF/wAp03q3F2 Gw2q1MSuV3+oSz5rknOPBbK4trcn9AMyk68+17mUDgTweW/hJI4ZvaH8uhW50gNm 6+XL7NHxUNKOJLSQdvGa =vaUM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

David -- that sounds about right to me (in terms of people liking the broad strokes and raising issues that are important but don't need to be in scope for this initial phase). If you have anything else you want to do first, let me know, otherwise I'll go ahead and accept the pull and, barring any further discussion that stands in the way, redeploy sometime this week. We can then proceed in a lot of directions from there :-) Sound good all? Cheers, Gershom On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 6:04 PM, David Deutsch wrote:

Hi Alexander,

Thank you for the kind words.

I've checked the color contrast and it seems to range between 3.2 and 4.7 with a mean contrast at 4.0, which borders on problematic (the recommendation is 4.5), but doesn't seem terribly inaccessible, especially since it's only used on a handful of links and not the entire text.

I will add this to my list of "along the way" improvements for a final run, trying to bump the contrast ratio to a more steady 4.5+.

Since you appear to be keen on accessibility: If you have specific issues that you would like to raise to and, preferably, advice on how to improve them, I'm all ears. I'm pointing that out because "doesn't /look/ accessible" (my emphasis) doesn't give me that much to work with and I hope it's obvious that following WCAG2.0 "as strictly as possible" is not feasible for a volunteer.

While I agree that accessibility is a very important aspect to pay attention to, I would appreciate not getting too lost in details like this at this stage in the process. The intent of my PR is to replace the current site design, not iron out every possible issue with it (similar contrast concerns are valid for the current site, for example the community section - that we fixed... by removing it - goes as low as 2.3 in terms of contrast) and certainly not attain a "universal design" (which, admittedly, I'm not sure I fully understand the meaning of).

That being said, I appreciate that my PR apparently continues to foster a level of bikeshedding (with occasional compliments thrown in) that seems to suggest that there isn't much objection to it ;-) So - since my time is limited, I hope we can move ahead with the PR some time soon and move the more detailed analysis to followup tickets.

best regards, David

On 30.05.2016 10:56, Alexander Berntsen wrote:

...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512

The pink on purple doesn't look accessible. I.e. there is too low contrast. Please try to make sure WCAG 2.0 is adhered to as strictly as possible in order to ensure universal design that doesn't discriminate against people with disabilities.

Thanks to David for working on this! - -- Alexander alexander@plaimi.net https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2

iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJXTAA7AAoJENQqWdRUGk8BWDsP/3R7h6MTLl8h8TYIXQFSLnUy bcvlcKZjhASa0ZYI0SSlrcIVWAcgX8kr6gbNjzxTuEQzfs+hOwMJF8BkmwzYI+bL dKhOr4C77TA22rJviyvSU89IUZRPG/Mjwe9jURFILCfiHTYYhnKCvkPke8kIEy99 VNLDdry41sV7EYv3ICuxxAk+0LU4qD5QJFpxzPy0Td5QHUgQF52XgdukakZbmsSk wHvbrhJP13SSaKyC0c8Zsvc7fmBUEszvCK5ae6CDNsIaUtHTyh2fKmSDHAxDjE7l R2iXcz6MjnV8ewu6d9lZ0VOETj38NXdOEC5Rmo+WT7J23x0+txNTH4vZUFQXyc5e vQVszMZGoWCB5bPieBSz7xKa9JX2kGV9EYgrDoPG3wtYrvEqIJrqy1Un/V8BEKpX REC3sS1lx6wI9vY0l1dWx6q0sNNfHA6eCSMp2Ay6E8ZZcuWUeUO7YPnFI55CB796 FtSgUPQlap0sp8fFxHGG7vfkCLk1iOWKFASV7fiUBehwuUWAWedCwOCOrUU8pfy5 egAE0fE/S6h2KkvHjnvbJljLib0Gdli04rkaFIDVLDfhQO0+JrMxrF/wAp03q3F2 Gw2q1MSuV3+oSz5rknOPBbK4trcn9AMyk68+17mUDgTweW/hJI4ZvaH8uhW50gNm 6+XL7NHxUNKOJLSQdvGa =vaUM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Haskell-community mailing list Haskell-community@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community

_______________________________________________ Haskell-community mailing list Haskell-community@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community

Replying to myself here - Since Gershom kindly went ahead with pushing the release live, I thought I'd open another issue on github concerning outstanding issues that the new design might have introduced: https://github.com/haskell-infra/hl/issues/165 I would prefer it if people could either post further findings/suggestions there or at least reference replies they've made here in a comment so I can keep track of them. best regards, David On 02.06.2016 00:36, David Deutsch wrote:

Thanks, Gershom,

I've added another commit and everything is good to go from my end.

best regards, David

On 31.05.2016 01:14, Gershom B wrote:

...

David -- that sounds about right to me (in terms of people liking the broad strokes and raising issues that are important but don't need to be in scope for this initial phase).

If you have anything else you want to do first, let me know, otherwise I'll go ahead and accept the pull and, barring any further discussion that stands in the way, redeploy sometime this week.

We can then proceed in a lot of directions from there :-)

Sound good all?

Cheers, Gershom

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 6:04 PM, David Deutsch wrote:

...

Hi Alexander,

Thank you for the kind words.

I've checked the color contrast and it seems to range between 3.2 and 4.7 with a mean contrast at 4.0, which borders on problematic (the recommendation is 4.5), but doesn't seem terribly inaccessible, especially since it's only used on a handful of links and not the entire text.

I will add this to my list of "along the way" improvements for a final run, trying to bump the contrast ratio to a more steady 4.5+.

Since you appear to be keen on accessibility: If you have specific issues that you would like to raise to and, preferably, advice on how to improve them, I'm all ears. I'm pointing that out because "doesn't /look/ accessible" (my emphasis) doesn't give me that much to work with and I hope it's obvious that following WCAG2.0 "as strictly as possible" is not feasible for a volunteer.

While I agree that accessibility is a very important aspect to pay attention to, I would appreciate not getting too lost in details like this at this stage in the process. The intent of my PR is to replace the current site design, not iron out every possible issue with it (similar contrast concerns are valid for the current site, for example the community section - that we fixed... by removing it - goes as low as 2.3 in terms of contrast) and certainly not attain a "universal design" (which, admittedly, I'm not sure I fully understand the meaning of).

That being said, I appreciate that my PR apparently continues to foster a level of bikeshedding (with occasional compliments thrown in) that seems to suggest that there isn't much objection to it ;-) So - since my time is limited, I hope we can move ahead with the PR some time soon and move the more detailed analysis to followup tickets.

best regards, David

On 30.05.2016 10:56, Alexander Berntsen wrote:

...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512

The pink on purple doesn't look accessible. I.e. there is too low contrast. Please try to make sure WCAG 2.0 is adhered to as strictly as possible in order to ensure universal design that doesn't discriminate against people with disabilities.

Thanks to David for working on this! - -- Alexander alexander@plaimi.net https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2

iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJXTAA7AAoJENQqWdRUGk8BWDsP/3R7h6MTLl8h8TYIXQFSLnUy bcvlcKZjhASa0ZYI0SSlrcIVWAcgX8kr6gbNjzxTuEQzfs+hOwMJF8BkmwzYI+bL dKhOr4C77TA22rJviyvSU89IUZRPG/Mjwe9jURFILCfiHTYYhnKCvkPke8kIEy99 VNLDdry41sV7EYv3ICuxxAk+0LU4qD5QJFpxzPy0Td5QHUgQF52XgdukakZbmsSk wHvbrhJP13SSaKyC0c8Zsvc7fmBUEszvCK5ae6CDNsIaUtHTyh2fKmSDHAxDjE7l R2iXcz6MjnV8ewu6d9lZ0VOETj38NXdOEC5Rmo+WT7J23x0+txNTH4vZUFQXyc5e vQVszMZGoWCB5bPieBSz7xKa9JX2kGV9EYgrDoPG3wtYrvEqIJrqy1Un/V8BEKpX REC3sS1lx6wI9vY0l1dWx6q0sNNfHA6eCSMp2Ay6E8ZZcuWUeUO7YPnFI55CB796 FtSgUPQlap0sp8fFxHGG7vfkCLk1iOWKFASV7fiUBehwuUWAWedCwOCOrUU8pfy5 egAE0fE/S6h2KkvHjnvbJljLib0Gdli04rkaFIDVLDfhQO0+JrMxrF/wAp03q3F2 Gw2q1MSuV3+oSz5rknOPBbK4trcn9AMyk68+17mUDgTweW/hJI4ZvaH8uhW50gNm 6+XL7NHxUNKOJLSQdvGa =vaUM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Haskell-community mailing list Haskell-community@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community

_______________________________________________ Haskell-community mailing list Haskell-community@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community

_______________________________________________ Haskell-community mailing list Haskell-community@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/haskell-community