nus-se-script
commented
2 months ago Team's Response
Thank you for the report.
Our team feels that there is sufficient contrast, and the diagram is perfectly readable. However, we acknowledge that this is highly subjective and have found research to back up our claim.
Using an online contrast checker, we have found the contrast ratio to be 5.64:1, which passes the AA standard for the internationally recognized Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). The AA level is recognized as a legal standard by many countries.
This website states a minimum contrast of 4.5:1 for the text to be readable for the AA standard.
Moreover, we do not deem this to be unnecessary as we want to show the interactions between the different entities when a deleteScore command is used. Hence, using the box makes the interactions clear to future developers who want to understand its implementations.
Therefore, we do not think this report is a cause for concern.
sources
Items for the Tester to Verify
:question: Issue response
Team chose [response.Rejected]
- [x] I disagree
Reason for disagreement: While the contrast passes the standard for the WCAG, this is still subjective and some readers may find it hard to read this.
I still think that removing the tinted background is overall better for readability. The coloured names for objects are clear enough for developers.
"NotInScope" is perhaps more appropriate here, since this fix is not necessary now but can be implemented in the future at a benefit.
Just a cosmetic flaw, but I noticed that all the sequence diagrams in the DG have a tinted background to indicate which component it's referring to:
This makes it harder to read the text in the diagram. I think having the objects colour-coded would be good enough, e.g. the red used in