Template talk:Newcastle Knights

Difficulty reading due to colours

I made an edit on this article due to the (in my opinion) bad colour contrast and brightness (this has been mentioned on another of the Newcastle Knight related templates). I have now checked the template against an accessibility tool and the result returned:

"The W3C recommends a standard of 500 or greater for the color 
difference and a standard of 125 or greater for color brightness."

For the red of blue:

"Fail: color brightness should be greater than 125 Brightness: 60
 Fail: color difference should be greater than 500 Difference: 394"

I am not going to change it now (myself), as I want to discuss the reasons to change the colours. To address the comment of the revert of my initial edit "Undid revision 363839797 by Boy.pockets (talk) Those are not the real colours." (by User:Josh the newcastle fan), I think that there is a rule that they should be the "real colours". I think it is nice when we can choose colours that make sense for the subject, but I don't think it very important. I think Accessability is more important. See this image of a South Sydney template to see how a person with colour blindness might see it (Note, this is not the same case as the Newcastle template, but just illustrates what I am talking about).

I recommend a colour picker tool to choose more suitable colours.

When researching this, I looked at the following articles;

• Wikipedia:Accessibility#Color
• Help:Using_colours
• Wikipedia:Don't_edit_war_over_the_colour_of_templates :)

cheers --Boy.pockets (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Still a problem with the colors

These colors are horrendous. If you do indeed want the template to look like a 13 year old girl's MySpace page, then please use colors that are compliant. Tools are located at WP:COLOR. --Bob247 (talk) 03:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree it's pretty bad. one option would be to use a format like this

which is the approach taken by {{rail navbox titlestyle}}. Frietjes (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

yet another option would be to use top-bottom borders like Template:Anaheim Ducks. Frietjes (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't much care for colors in the templates, but if one must go down that route, then the first example you have would, IMO, be the best approach, although with leaving the text in a neutral default color. --Bob247 (talk) 16:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Making a compromise is a good idea, but Gibson Flying V yet has to participate in this discussion. I see he's only been reverting until now. If he does not participate, a compromise is useless. I'll leave him a message to ask him to collaborate.

Looks like this user was already blocked for edit warring. If he is not willing to discuss, I'm afraid this matter will belong to the admins. Dodoïste (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks like this user was already blocked for edit warring. If he is not willing to discuss, I'm afraid this matter will belong to the admins. Getting a bit ahead of ourselves aren't we? Maybe it's time to re-familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Assume good faith? Anyway, I'd already taken what was said here on board, read WP:COLOR and changed the colours to 0000FF and FF0000, which according to this website are "sort of" compliant. What's the problem?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for participating in this discussion, as we can now understand your position and collaborate. I apologise for my harsh words, and I'm glad you have proven me wrong.

This tool might be misleading. "Sort of" actually means that the contrast is not good enough. In this case, "FF0000" foreground on "0000FF" background has a (2.1 : 1) contrast ratio, where it should have at least (4.5 : 1). You have to reach the "WCAG compliant AA" level in order to have sufficient contrast, and comply to WP:COLOR. Dodoïste (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Having read WP:COLOR more closely, I can see that you're right about the "WCAG compliant AA" level so I'm changing the text to white.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) Dodoïste (talk) 07:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)