This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Why is the default appearance of {{ tq}} (like this) ostensibly identcal to that used for examples with {{ xt}} (like this), as distinct from that for incorrect examples with {{ !xt}} (not like this). I see {{ tq}} so rarely, when I first saw it, I thought it was someone misusing the {{ xt}} template. It is confusing when discussing on talk pages examples of correct and incorrect uses and someone quotes someone else.
Can {{ tq}} be changed to another colour and/or font? — sroc ( talk) 08:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I've tried adding the following to my my style sheet:
.inline-quote-talk { color: #FF6600; }
but it does not work. Actual use of the {{ tq}} template produces this HTML source:
<span class="inline-quote-talk" style="font-family: Georgia, serif; color: #008000;"> … </span>
Because the style
parameter is hard coded into the span
tag, does this effectively override the class
set in the stylesheet, therefore making it impossible to customise? I can customise the font size, for example, presumably because this is not hard coded. —
sroc
💬 11:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
!important;
in your CSS to override the inline styles. —
Edokter (
talk) — 11:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
.inline-quote-talk, .inline-quote-talk2 {
color: #000000 !important;
font-family: Arial, sans-serif !important;
border: solid 1px #1E90FF; border-left:solid 3px #1E90FF;
padding: 0px 3px;
background-color: #DFEFFF;
}
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
I quite like the idea of the {{ talkquote}} and {{ tq}} templates matching.
I quite like the idea of the {{ talkquote}} and {{ tq}} templates matching.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose to change the font colour used in the {{ tq}} template used for quoting comments on talk pages, which is currently green and so similar to the green used by the {{ xt}} template for example text that these templates are sometimes used interchangeably. It has been suggested to change it to blue (mimicking the colour used by the corresponding {{ talkquote}} template) or orange (provided that it is distinguishable from the red used by the {{ !xt}} template).
Please comment below. — sroc 💬 14:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, editors frequently use {{ tq}} instead of {{ xt}}, or vice versa, because they see the green serif font used for both cases and don't realise they're different templates.
Secondly, quoted text may include an example which is barely perceptible from the surrounding text
Additionally, it would be convenient for the colours used by {{ tq}} and {{ talkquote}} to match since they serve the same purpose.
"I've seen that occur on occasion, but how is it substantially detrimental?"It is inherently confusing to have text formatted in a particular stand-out format for contrary purposes. For example:
In any case, as people become conditioned to associate green text with good examples, it seems odd to use virtually the same format for something else entirely, especially given that both often appear in the same discussions. Better to have distinctly different formats to avoid such confusion.He said
"I think it's fine"in relation to the example "I don't like it!"
"Note that the color change also applied to the template's italic mode, activated via the "i=y" parameter..."That's fine, but the default is the serif font. I think it would be preferable to have either no font specified or the italic sans-serif as the default (and allow serif as an optional parameter) than using the same font as examples by default. You are meant to use quotation marks anyway when using the {{ tq}} template, which already marks the text visually, so no meaning is lost by not changing the font.
"In such an instance, a better solution is to use the {{ talkquote}} template."That's not a bad idea. I've generally seen {{ tq}} for short quotes (although sometimes used for text spanning several lines) and {{ talkquote}} for longer quotes (several lines, a paragraph, or more), so editors may prefer {{ tq}} for their shorter quotes that happen to be used in conversations that also include examples.
"...it could be accomplished by simply adjusting the coloration of {{ talkquote}} (instead of both templates)."The problem is that the colour for the border of {{ talkquote}} was so light that it would not provide a good contrast ratio if it were used for text in {{ tq}}. — sroc 💬 04:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
It is inherently confusing to have text formatted in a particular stand-out format for contrary purposes.
In any case, as people become conditioned to associate green text with good examples, it seems odd to use virtually the same format for something else entirely, especially given that both often appear in the same discussions. Better to have distinctly different formats to avoid such confusion.
That's fine, but the default is the serif font. I think it would be preferable to have either no font specified or the italic sans-serif as the default (and allow serif as an optional parameter) than using the same font as examples by default.
You are meant to use quotation marks anyway when using the {{ tq}} template, which already marks the text visually, so no meaning is lost by not changing the font.
The problem is that the colour for the border of {{ talkquote}} was so light that it would not provide a good contrast ratio if it were used for text in {{ tq}}.
s=y
parameter to past posts Why does it need to be "major harm"?
A minor inconvenience is still an inconvenience and if we can avoid it, why shouldn't we?
Some uses of {{ tq}} might be better off using {{ talkquote}}, but: (1) I'm not the template police and I don't go about telling people which template I think they should use;
(2) the suggestion to use a different template indicates that the current template is not serving its intended purpose;
(3) short quotes are still better off using {{ tq}} and these cases can still be confused with {{ xt}}.
I'm glad we can agree on making the sans-serif italics the default.
I'm not averse to having a bot deploy the proposed s=y
parameter to past posts (not technically transclusions)
to ensure the current serif format is preserved, but I will leave this to others (it's in the nature of templates that they change, so I'm not sure this is necessary).
#008080
) has a colour contrast with black (#000000
) of 4.40:1, which is even stronger than the current green (4.09:1), so would you not support this change? Or #007B7B
(4.12:1)? Or #007878
(3.96:1)?"adversely impact the majority of {{ tq}}'s usage"if we do it well.
Teal (#008080) has a colour contrast with black (#000000) of 4.40:1, which is even stronger than the current green (4.09:1), so would you not support this change? Or #007B7B (4.12:1)? Or #007878 (3.96:1)?
I don't see how changing the colour/font will necessarily "adversely impact the majority of {{ tq}}'s usage" if we do it well.
By the way, I used a custom CSS to format {{ tq}} and {{ xt}} differently precisely because I was frustrated with this situation; consequently, if someone uses the wrong template, it stands out like a sore thumb.
It may seem like a trivial matter to you, but every so often someone needs to stand up for the seemingly insignificant.
He said "An example of the {{ tq}} template with an example included" above.
An example of the {{ talkquote}} template with an example included (using teal text).
An example of the {{ talkquote}} template with an example included (using black text).
{{
xt}}
, but more than that of {{
xtn}}
. Should not (as current appearance does) attract more attention than the response to it. It should be less contrasty than plain text, so greyish. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)#007878
: He asked "What do you think?"#008560
: He asked "What do you think?"The contrast ratio is: 4.03:1
Passed at Level AA for large text only: If the text is large text (at least 18 point or 14 point bold), the luminosity contrast ratio is sufficient for the chosen colours (#dfefef and #008080).
The contrast ratio is: 17.73:1
Passed at Level AAA: The luminosity contrast ratio is very good for the chosen colours (#dfefef and #000000).
The contrast ratio is: 6.28:1
Passed at Level AA for regular text, and pass at Level AAA for large text: If the text is large text (at least 18 point or 14 point bold), the luminosity contrast ratio is sufficient for the chosen colours at Level AAA; otherwise, Level AA (#dfefef and #006400).
The contrast ratio is: 8.45:1
Passed at Level AAA: The luminosity contrast ratio is very good for the chosen colours (#dfefef and #8B0000).
The contrast ratio is: 4.64:1
Passed at Level AA for regular text, and pass at Level AAA for large text: If the text is large text (at least 18 point or 14 point bold), the luminosity contrast ratio is sufficient for the chosen colours at Level AAA; otherwise, Level AA (#dfefef and #696969).
The contrast ratio is: 8.70:1
Passed at Level AAA: The luminosity contrast ratio is very good for the chosen colours (#dfefef and #002bb8).
The contrast ratio is: 7.38:1
Passed at Level AAA: The luminosity contrast ratio is very good for the chosen colours (#dfefef and #5a3696).
The contrast ratio is: 4.67:1
Passed at Level AA for regular text, and pass at Level AAA for large text: If the text is large text (at least 18 point or 14 point bold), the luminosity contrast ratio is sufficient for the chosen colours at Level AAA; otherwise, Level AA (#dfefef and #cc2200).
#dfefef
) background contrasting well with black foreground text and all the standard link colours and the example template colours. —
sroc
💬 00:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The contrast ratio is: 4.72:1
Passed at Level AA for regular text, and pass at Level AAA for large text: If the text is large text (at least 18 point or 14 point bold), the luminosity contrast ratio is sufficient for the chosen colours at Level AAA; otherwise, Level AA (#dfefef and #36b).
#008080
) on a white background checks out, too: — sroc 💬 00:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)The contrast ratio is: 4.77:1
Passed at Level AA for regular text, and pass at Level AAA for large text: If the text is large text (at least 18 point or 14 point bold), the luminosity contrast ratio is sufficient for the chosen colours at Level AAA; otherwise, Level AA (#fff and #008080).
#f9f9f9
): — sroc 💬 00:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)The contrast ratio is: 4.53:1
Passed at Level AA for regular text, and pass at Level AAA for large text: If the text is large text (at least 18 point or 14 point bold), the luminosity contrast ratio is sufficient for the chosen colours at Level AAA; otherwise, Level AA (#f9f9f9 and #008080).
— Edokter ( talk) — 01:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)The contrast ratio is: 6.98:1
Passed at Level AA for regular text, and pass at Level AAA for large text: If the text is large text (at least 18 point or 14 point bold), the luminosity contrast ratio is sufficient for the chosen colours at Level AAA; otherwise, Level AA (#fff and #006464).
#006464
) looks good, but is even closer to the {{
xt}} colour (#006400
) than the proposed teal (#008080
). I think it would be OK though if the default font for {{
tq}} is changed to a sans-serif font or, better yet, invoked the sans-serif italics by default: We could switch it to make italics the default and useHe said "I don't like it" in relation to the example "I hate it!"
s=y
as an option to implement the serif font, which would still be (slightly) more distinguishable from the example font than it is now: — sroc 💬 05:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)He said "I don't like it" in relation to the example "I hate it!"
"Replacing #008000 with #006464 would reduce the color contrast ratio between the quotations and black text from 4.09:1 to 3.01:1."#008080 actually fares better with a colour contrast of 4.40:1. — sroc 💬 09:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
If I may summarise the common ground on the discussion so far:
i=y
) which uses italics in the default font (example). It would be preferable to adopt this as the default and allow the current serif font as an alternate option (e.g., s=y
where "s" stands for "serif"). However, this alone would not distinguish from the {{
xt}} template (without also changing the colour) because: (a) the output would still be similar where the serif option of {{
tq}} is invoked; (b) quoted text which uses bold/italic formatting may be confused with {{
bxt}}."The template's purpose is to set off quotations from the normal talk page text surrounding them, accomplished via the use of styling and coloration distinct therefrom"), although it has been suggested that this is not necessary ( Edokter:
"The contrast with the text color should not be that high anyway, as that hurts readability").
It is therefore proposed that:
Colours suggested for the {{ tq}} template include:
Colour | Example | Hex code | Contrast with background [1] | Colour difference with surrounding text [2] | Notes | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Monobook ( #f8fcff ) |
Vector / Modern ( #ffffff ) |
Cologne Blue ( #ffffec ) |
{{
Archive top}} ( #edeaff ) |
Black ( #000000 ) |
{{
xt}} ( #006400 ) |
Link (unfollowed) ( #002bb8 ) |
Link (followed) ( #5a3696 )
| ||||
Green | Example | #008000 |
4.98:1 | 5.14:1 | 5.08:1 | 4.36:1 | 128 | 28 | 269 | 314 | Current colour |
Teal (light) | Example | #008080 |
4.63:1 | 4.77:1 | 4.72:1 | 4.05:1 | 256 | 156 | 141 | 186 | Proposed by Reify-tech |
Teal (medium) | Example | #007B7B |
4.94:1 | 5.10:1 | 5.04:1 | 4.32:1 | 246 | 146 | 141 | 186 | Proposed by sroc [Note 1] |
Teal (medium-dark) | Example | #007878 |
5.14:1 | 5.31:1 | 5.25:1 | 4.50:1 | 240 | 140 | 141 | 186 | Proposed by sroc [Note 2] |
Teal (dark) | Example | #006464 |
6.77:1 | 6.98:1 | 6.91:1 | 5.92:1 | 200 | 100 | 141 | 186 | Proposed by Edokter |
Custom shade | Example | #008560 |
4.50:1 | 4.64:1 | 4.59:1 | 3.94:1 | 129 | 241 | 286 | Proposed by David Levy |
Can we reach any consensus on the precise colour? — sroc 💬 14:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
#f8fcff
? That colour is not specified anywhere in
cologneblue.css (unspecified),
modern.css (specifies #f0f0f0
),
monobook.css (#f9f9f9
) or
vector.css (#f3f3f3
). —
sroc
💬 02:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)#008560
) is "sufficiently distinct from" {{
xt}} (#006400
). Take this example: The lighter shades of teal provide better contrast:He said "I didn't propose I didn't do it! but I'll go with it."
#008080
: He said "I didn't propose I didn't do it! but I'll go with it."#007B7B
: He said "I didn't propose I didn't do it! but I'll go with it."#006464
: He said "I didn't propose I didn't do it! but I'll go with it."I appreciate that sudden changes to templates could potentially have some impact on existing statements, but that's inherent in using templates: they can, and do, change over time.
I'm sure any reference to "green text" that suddenly becomes teal will still be understood and such references will soon fall into the archive pages
and be superseded by uses of the revised template with greater clarity between the templates which are currently practically identical.
We have a tool for calculating the contrast of luminosity, but do we have a tool for contrasting different colours (i.e., how easily distinguishable specific shade of "green" and "teal"/"blue-green" are, even if they have similar luminosity)? — sroc 💬 09:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks from me too, SiBr4. I have the same colors, so this confirms that there isn't something peculiar happening on my end. — David Levy 09:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
#007878
) is optimal amongst the proposed options because:
#006400
) and "link blue" (#002bb8
), so it is as far as we can move away from green before becoming too blue.#99ff99 ( Template:Sfp create/ Template:Sfp top), #bff9fc ( Template:Cfd top), #e0e0e0 ( Template:AfC-c), #e3d2fb ( Template:Mfd top), #e3f9df ( Template:Closed/ Template:Tfd top), #e5ecf5 ( Template:Puf top), #e6f2ff ( Template:FAR top), #eeffee ( Template:Poll top/ Template:RM top/ Template:Road top), #f3f9ff ( Template:Afd top/ Template:Archived WikiProject Proposal top/ Template:Cem top/ Template:Ffd top/ Template:Rfc top), #f5f3ef ( Template:Discussion centralize top/ Template:Discussion top/ Template:Election top/ Template:Report top), #f5fff5 ( Template:Fpo1 top/ Template:Rfap/ Template:Rfbagp/ Template:Rfbp), #ff9999 ( Template:Sfp nocreate), #ffeedd ( Template:Rfd top), #fff2e6 ( Template:Flr top/ Template:Fl top) and #fff5f5 ( Template:Fpo top/ Template:Rfaf/ Template:Rfbagf/ Template:Rfbf)
#e6f2ff ( Template:FPR top) and #ffffe0 ( Template:Rfah/ Template:Rfbh)
#eaffea ( Template:Archive top green), #efefef ( Template:Sfdisc top), #ffe4b5 ( Template:Rfcn top) and #ffeaea ( Template:Archive top red).
"This is getting complicated."I doubt whether any of the proposed colours would comply with all of the above and still provide the desired stand-out effect. Take the first example, a bright green (
#99ff99
), which already clashes with the current "TQ green" (4.19:1); your proposed #008560
is worse (3.78:1); my proposed #007878
is an improvement but still fails "AA" grade (4.33:1); the darker #006464
passes "AA" (5.69:1) but has reduced contrast with plain black text and "example green". I suspect that at some point we will need to make a compromise between contrasting with every possible background versus contrasting with the common text colours. It's a shame that there are so many bright background colours used in various templates which make choosing any safe text colour such a headache! —
sroc
💬 21:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)#007878
is probably the best compromise because, putting aside the cornucopia of colour in the above templates, it represents the mid-point between "example green" and "link blue" and it contrasts well with the other main text colours and main backgrounds. It also passes against {{
archive top}}, which is probably the most common of all these templates, and presumably will cope better than average with most of the others, so it's a good compromise. Certainly an improvement on the current green, which fails on several counts at least on the more common colour combinations (black text, "example green", {{
archive top}}, as well as {{
sfp create}} and no doubt others). —
sroc
💬 03:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Comments such as "I perceive plenty of contrast" and "I don't" are unhelpful; we don't know what hardware, software or settings you are using, nor what lighting conditions you are experiencing, and how your eyes function. I have indicated above tool for objectively measuring contrast, and guidelines for the desired levels of contrast. Please use those. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
#5D4A00
) and bright blue (#0000FF
) are clearly different colours and unlikely to be confused; they have a colour difference of 422 (which is high) but a luminosity contrast ratio of 1:1 (identical), so clearly colour difference is the better indication for comparing font colours (but they would be horrible as a foreground/background combination: like this). —
sroc
💬 17:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Expanded table including some additional archive templates:
Colour | Example | Hex code | Luminosity contrast ratio with background | Colour difference with surrounding text | Notes | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Page background | Common archive templates | Plain text | Template | Links | |||||||||||||
Monobook ( #f8fcff )
|
Vector /
Modern ( #ffffff )
|
Cologne Blue ( #ffffec )
|
{{
Archive top}} ( #edeaff )
|
{{
Sfp top}} ( #99ff99 )
|
{{
Mfd top}} ( #e3d2fb )
|
Vector skin ( #252525 )
|
Other skins ( #000000 )
|
{{
xt}} ( #006400 )
|
Internal (unvisited) ( #002bb8 )
|
Internal (visited) ( #5a3696 )
|
External / interwiki ( #3366bb )
|
Nonexistent (unvisited) ( #cc2200 )
|
Nonexistent (visited) ( #a55858 )
| ||||
Green | Example | #008000
|
4.98:1 | 5.14:1 | 5.08:1 | 4.36:1 | 4.19:1 | 3.64:1 | 165 | 128 | 28 | 269 | 314 | 264 | 298 | 293 | Current colour |
Teal (light) | Example | #008080
|
4.63:1 | 4.77:1 | 4.72:1 | 4.05:1 | 3.89:1 | 3.38:1 | 219 | 256 | 156 | 141 | 186 | 136 | 426 | 245 | Proposed by Reify-tech |
Teal (medium) | Example | #007B7B
|
4.94:1 | 5.10:1 | 5.04:1 | 4.32:1 | 4.16:1 | 3.61:1 | 209 | 246 | 146 | 141 | 186 | 136 | 416 | 235 | Proposed by sroc (#1) |
Teal (medium-dark) | Example | #007878
|
5.14:1 | 5.31:1 | 5.25:1 | 4.50:1 | 4.33:1 | 3.76:1 | 203 | 240 | 140 | 141 | 186 | 136 | 410 | 229 | Proposed by sroc (#2) |
Teal (quite dark) | Example | #006A6A
|
6.23:1 | 6.42:1 | 6.35:1 | 5.45:1 | 5.24:1 | 4.55:1 | 175 | 212 | 112 | 141 | 186 | 136 | 382 | 201 | Suggested by sroc (#3) |
Teal (dark) | Example | #006464
|
6.77:1 | 6.98:1 | 6.91:1 | 5.92:1 | 5.69:1 | 4.95:1 | 163 | 200 | 100 | 141 | 186 | 140 | 370 | 189 | Proposed by Edokter |
Custom shade | Example | #008560
|
4.50:1 | 4.64:1 | 4.59:1 | 3.94:1 | 3.78:1 | 3.29:1 | 192 | 129 | 241 | 286 | 173 | 399 | 218 | Proposed by David Levy | |
Legend | < 375:1 < 400:1 < 425:1 < 450:1 | < 75 < 100 < 120 < 140 |
The more background colours we compare against, the more attractive darker text looks to distinguish, but this simultaneously diminishes contrast with surrounding colours. I've added another shade of teal for comparison, although I don't necessarily endorse it as I think it is more important to provide contrast with {{ xt}} (where confusion is more likely to arise) than "AA" compliance with every possible template (where the discussion is closed and the text will nonetheless be readable if a little bit of a strain):
#006A6A
: He said "I didn't propose I didn't do it! but I'll go with it."My preferred option remains #007878
(but I would be happy with a lighter version of teal or a slightly darker version if that's where the consensus lies):
#007878
: He said "I didn't propose I didn't do it! but I'll go with it."— sroc 💬 05:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC) [corrected error in table — sroc 💬 14:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)]
As I said, the shading is merely a visual aid.
The numbers are more telling and the categories where your proposal fails fail quite badly.
As I have also said, I believe it is necessary to strike a balance between distinguishing from common backgrounds
and distinguishing from other colours, hence my attempts to find a middle-ground.
#007B7B
to #006A6A
(with some leeway on either side) that I would be happy with, but I think that #008560
is still too close to #006400
for the difference to stand out. Of course, this isn't about what you or I want, but about reaching consensus, and I'm at least happy that we're moving in the right direction. —
sroc
💬 01:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)I assume by 360% increase, you refer to the change from 28 to 129.
Expressing this as a percentage is misleading since the original 28 is very bad so any change can seem significant by comparison.
If the difference was originally 12, you could claim a 1075% increase,
but that still doesn't mean the new version is really good enough.
We have the opportunity to make the difference much more distinct, yet you seem to be holding out.
The only reason I see for avoiding a shift from green towards blue–green is to avoid conflicting with blue link colours, and this is why I'm trying to find a happy medium.
There's a range of shades from #007B7B to #006A6A (with some leeway on either side) that I would be happy with, but I think that #008560 is still too close to #006400 for the difference to stand out.
#007878
because it is as far as we can go from "example green" towards blue–green before becoming more like "link blue". I added #006A6A
to the table as a further compromise for the sake of comparing another shade trying to balance the luminosity contrast ratio and the colour difference level, but I haven't proposed this colour as such.My point is that such comparisons are unhelpful when the starting point is so skewed.
We should be looking at the end result, not the comparison with what was.
I haven't designated anything as "pass" or "fail" on the "colour difference side".
As I've said, I proposed #007878 because it is as far as we can go from "example green" towards blue–green before becoming more like "link blue".
I'm not sure the best way to objectively demonstrate this, divorced of system settings, monitor settings, visual perception, etc., but to my eyes all the shades of teal look different from "example green" whereas your custom shade looks distinctly green and very similar to "example green".
We did agree on using the tool; the disagreement surrounds how we use it,
since there is no "redline" for a "pass" or "fail" on a particular standard, as far as we are aware.
In absence of an objective standard: it's my view that the optimal position is to find a mid-point between potentially conflicting colours in order to provide as much distance as possible;
it's your view that this is unnecessary,
but I'm not sure why you arrived at the arbitrary colour that you have,
which provides less distinction with black and "example green" than my proposal
and fails the "AA" test against any background other than the default skin backgrounds.
#f8fcff
and barely imperceptible from white, so virtually any shading would fail "AA" standard against your text (other than very light shading which would not interfere with any other text colours)."I attempted to find the bluest possible shade that could reasonably be considered 'green'". If I understand you correctly, you have come at this from the perspective that any substituted colour must be a shade of green; hence, any shade of teal would fail your test as being too blue, irrespective of the objective test results. The whole point of this exercise (i.e., to avoid confusion with "example green") is undermined if a criterion is that the new colour must be green. — sroc 💬 14:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, my apologies for any errors in the table; I assure you they are genuinely errors, probably from the copy-pasting in all the testing;
I have corrected the error you mentioned, but please feel free to correct any others.
I also apologise if you feel that I have mischaracterised your position in my summary; I am trying to understand your point of view better.
I did not mean to imply that I had tested your colour against every template background colour that exists; my point was that your custom shade is right on the border with the darkest of the skin backgrounds, which itself is very light #f8fcff
and barely imperceptible from white,
so virtually any shading would fail "AA" standard against your text (other than very light shading which would not interfere with any other text colours).
What concerns me is your comment: "I attempted to find the bluest possible shade that could reasonably be considered 'green'". If I understand you correctly, you have come at this from the perspective that any substituted colour must be a shade of green; hence, any shade of teal would fail your test as being too blue, irrespective of the objective test results.
The whole point of this exercise (i.e., to avoid confusion with "example green") is undermined if a criterion is that the new colour must be green.
Please do not edit my previous comments;
Please feel free to update the table to include the interwiki link colour, which would be great, and let's revisit the colour options once we have that data.
As I mentioned below, in order for this change to be effective in distinguishing {{ tq}} and {{ xt}}, I think that it is best both: (a) to tweak the colour of this template; and (b) to make the italics option the default. I believe you agree on this, we just haven't settled on the exact colour yet.
If only the colour changes, however, I'm not convinced that this will be enough to avoid confusion between these templates.
I trust you understand where I am coming from, even if you disagree.
"Please do not edit my previous comments"line didn't come across as suggesting you would; I noted that you had said you wouldn't in your earlier comment and meant only to acknowledge my appreciation for that.
#3366bb
) is closer to all shades of teal (colour difference: 136) than your custom shade (colour difference: 173). Even so, this is not much different than the result for the internal link colour (#002bb8
), which is only slightly further from teal (colour difference: 140). I would still prefer medium-dark teal (#007878
) to your custom shade (#008560
) on the basis that:
"mitigating the problem"rather than resolving it).
Change colour only | Change colour and font style |
---|---|
Whereas I previously said "I'm not convinced", I can compare this with examples like this and see that they could still be confused. | Whereas I previously said "I'm not convinced", I can contrast this with examples like this and see that they are probably far enough apart. |
I note that this colour (#3366bb) is closer to all shades of teal (colour difference: 136) than your custom shade (colour difference: 173). Even so, this is not much different than the result for the internal link colour (#002bb8), which is only slightly further from teal (colour difference: 140).
it provides a more even difference from all of the text colours in consideration, including {{ xt}} (I acknowledge that you disagree with this reasoning);
it provides greater contrast with backgrounds with some shading beyond the default skin backgrounds (although I agree that this is not a paramount consideration and we would be better off dispensing with dark backgrounds in templates altogether).
Despite this, upon further consideration, I think I could justify settling on your custom shade for {{ tq}} provided that the italics option (or some formatting other than the current serif) is set as the default, which should hopefully be enough to avoid confusion with {{ xt}}.
If that change doesn't happen, then I fear all of this will have been in vain (so, no, I would be disappointed with merely "mitigating the problem" rather than resolving it).
If you would support a change to Levy custom shade italics, would you also agree with updating the border of {{ talkquote}} to match, since the templates are related?
Regarding the colour, I dispute that I "seek to downplay the distinction" regarding the shading.
I admitted that the numbers for each shaded range were arbitrary, but not baseless.
The numbers are what's important here, but the colours serve their purpose, too, providing a visual cue of where problems lie.
You can change the colours and gradients and fill them throughout the table like a temperature chart if you like, but I'd prefer we didn't abandon the shading altogether.
I was rather hoping that we had agreed on a colour – the custom shade you had proposed – that this would be redundant now, anyway.
Regarding the font formatting, I still think the simplest way to go is make italics the default, since this is already an option that many editors will be familiar with and indeed you prefer yourself;
if the loss of emphasis is an issue, the template can be adjusted so that wiki markup can switch italics to non-italics within the template.
Actually, what's the serif font that's recently been introduced for headings?
"I arbitrarily chose 140 since the comparison between all varieties of teal being considered with the unvisited link colour was 141, so it seemed like as good a place as any the draw a line in the sand. The shading is really just a visual aid to help see where the problem areas lie."Then:
"The numbers are more telling..."Then:
"In absence of an objective standard: it's my view that the optimal position is to find a mid-point between potentially conflicting colours in order to provide as much distance as possible"so the shading marks that mid-point. It's not about which colours "seem good" or "seem bad", but reflecting the points I have already discussed, and I find the colours helpful, not to show "right"/"wrong" or "pass"/"fail" but "better"/"worse"; you disagree, and I respect your opinion.
#000000
) has been replaced with #252525
, so I suppose this should be updated in the table, too? —
sroc
💬 13:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)I first wrote: "I arbitrarily chose 140 since the comparison between all varieties of teal being considered with the unvisited link colour was 141, so it seemed like as good a place as any the draw a line in the sand. The shading is really just a visual aid to help see where the problem areas lie."
Then: "The numbers are more telling..."
Then: "In absence of an objective standard: it's my view that the optimal position is to find a mid-point between potentially conflicting colours in order to provide as much distance as possible" so the shading marks that mid-point."
It's not about which colours "seem good" or "seem bad",
but reflecting the points I have already discussed, and I find the colours helpful, not to show "right"/"wrong" or "pass"/"fail" but "better"/"worse";
you disagree, and I respect your opinion.
Meanwhile, I note at mw:Typography refresh#Why did we change the body text color? that black (#000000) has been replaced with #252525, so I suppose this should be updated in the table, too?
<del>
and <ins>
(or just create a new table) so that the intervening commentary still makes sense.I'm sure you understand this by now, but for the avoidance of doubt, I didn't choose 140 because it suited my colour; it represented the mid-point out of the colours that were being compared.
In hindsight, it would have been better to apply a gradient across the whole table to reflect that "better" and "worse" are on a continuum and to avoid the perception of a specific tipping point.
I see that you have updated the tables including some of the spacing of the wiki markup, but I assume none of the figures that were already in the table have changes;
I appreciate the respect that you have demonstrated in our discussions. Thanks again for your civil approach – often easy to be misconstrued in text-based conversations.
If this discussion has taught us anything, it's that backgrounds colours in templates are bad ideas that lead to trouble finding text colours that contrast well. We'd be better off toning down the borders and reducing (or removing) the background colour.
He said
"This is what is looks like"when quoting within a block of text.
He said
"This is what is looks like"when quoting within a block of text.
#008560
on #f2fefc
has a luminosity contrast ratio of 4.50:1. The visual cues of the border and the text colour should be more than enough to mark the quoted text despite the reduction in background shading. —
sroc
💬 22:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)@
Edokter: I'm all for implementing this at {{
talkquote}}. I'm not sure whether we've reached a consensus on {{
tq}}: I think we've resolved on a colour (
David Levy's #008560
), but I only agree that this solves the initial problem if the sans-serif italics option is made the default, which has met some opposition (see the below discussion which has fallen silent). In any case, both templates should reflect the same colour (i.e., the border in {{
talkquote}} should match the text in {{
tq}}). —
sroc
💬 13:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
#008560
would be a step in the right direction, although not enough overall. Similarly,
Edokter's #006464
combined with sans-serif italics would help to differentiate from {{
xt}}, but a stronger colour difference would be preferable in cases where the serif option is invoked. I'm tired of debating over colours though and will go wherever the consensus falls. —
sroc
💬 20:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)#008560
. It wasn't either party's first preference, but we weighed the evidence and reached a compromise. That's what establishing
consensus is all about: not sticking to one view and defending it to the death, but discussing the issues to reach an agreeable solution.#008560
, but if you persuaded David to accept #006464
then I would go along with this. In either case, I think some other font formatting is needed, and my money's on sans-serif italics as this is the optional format already in use that people will be most familiar with, but if the tide of opinion favour some other formatting, so be it; the important thing to my mind is to move away from the current font-family, at least as the default.#008560
. —
sroc
💬 23:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)On a related note, I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility#Background colours on templates. — sroc 💬 06:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
#007878
):
Another alternative might be to adopt another different font ..." and I agreed.
Another alternative might be to adopt another different font ..." and I agreed.
"you seem to want to use three attributes"misrepresents my position, and to extrapolate
"four or five"even moreso; nor have I ever suggested
"more is better".
It may not be the way HTML handles it, but that's how it works in the real world. 01:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)If something within a run of italics needs to be italicized itself, the type is normally switched back to non-italicized ( roman) type: "I think The Scarlet Letter had a chapter about that, thought Mary". In this example, the title ("The Scarlet Letter") is within an italicized thought process and therefore this title is non-italicized.
<em>...</em>
) when quoting, in order to use the same markup for a purpose for which it is specifically discouraged, "It is normally incorrect to put quotations in italics. They should only be used if the material would otherwise call for italics, such as for emphasis or to indicate use of non-English words." -- RexxS ( talk) 15:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
If you’re already writing in italics and you need to use italics, you COULD use boldface or underlining, but the generally accepted practice seems to be to UNitalicize. Let’s say I was writing to you about a great book about the making of the film Casablanca, my favorite movie. I would type it like this: I’m reading this great book called The Making of Casablanca: Everyone’s Favorite Movie. Notice that everything’s in italics except the name of the film
Because italic (sloping) type contrasts with roman (vertical) type, a writer can require words or passages to be typeset in italics in order to call special attention to them, to give them special meaning, or to distinguish them from the rest of his or her text. [...]
Note that when the main body of a text is printed in italics, roman type is used for emphasis and for the other purposes described in this chapter.
By the way, if you must emphasize a word or phrase within a long passage of italics, just use roman text.
By convention, if something is in italics and something within it would otherwise be italicized, then it's put in normal type.
I never really understood why user quotes need to be so 'fancy' anyway. This is highly confusing with {{ xt}}, and quotes are not examples. How about going back to basics here and "just go like this"? — Edokter ( talk) — 10:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Why is the default appearance of {{ tq}} (like this) ostensibly identcal to that used for examples with {{ xt}} (like this), as distinct from that for incorrect examples with {{ !xt}} (not like this). I see {{ tq}} so rarely, when I first saw it, I thought it was someone misusing the {{ xt}} template. It is confusing when discussing on talk pages examples of correct and incorrect uses and someone quotes someone else.
Can {{ tq}} be changed to another colour and/or font? — sroc ( talk) 08:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I've tried adding the following to my my style sheet:
.inline-quote-talk { color: #FF6600; }
but it does not work. Actual use of the {{ tq}} template produces this HTML source:
<span class="inline-quote-talk" style="font-family: Georgia, serif; color: #008000;"> … </span>
Because the style
parameter is hard coded into the span
tag, does this effectively override the class
set in the stylesheet, therefore making it impossible to customise? I can customise the font size, for example, presumably because this is not hard coded. —
sroc
💬 11:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
!important;
in your CSS to override the inline styles. —
Edokter (
talk) — 11:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
.inline-quote-talk, .inline-quote-talk2 {
color: #000000 !important;
font-family: Arial, sans-serif !important;
border: solid 1px #1E90FF; border-left:solid 3px #1E90FF;
padding: 0px 3px;
background-color: #DFEFFF;
}
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
I quite like the idea of the {{ talkquote}} and {{ tq}} templates matching.
I quite like the idea of the {{ talkquote}} and {{ tq}} templates matching.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose to change the font colour used in the {{ tq}} template used for quoting comments on talk pages, which is currently green and so similar to the green used by the {{ xt}} template for example text that these templates are sometimes used interchangeably. It has been suggested to change it to blue (mimicking the colour used by the corresponding {{ talkquote}} template) or orange (provided that it is distinguishable from the red used by the {{ !xt}} template).
Please comment below. — sroc 💬 14:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, editors frequently use {{ tq}} instead of {{ xt}}, or vice versa, because they see the green serif font used for both cases and don't realise they're different templates.
Secondly, quoted text may include an example which is barely perceptible from the surrounding text
Additionally, it would be convenient for the colours used by {{ tq}} and {{ talkquote}} to match since they serve the same purpose.
"I've seen that occur on occasion, but how is it substantially detrimental?"It is inherently confusing to have text formatted in a particular stand-out format for contrary purposes. For example:
In any case, as people become conditioned to associate green text with good examples, it seems odd to use virtually the same format for something else entirely, especially given that both often appear in the same discussions. Better to have distinctly different formats to avoid such confusion.He said
"I think it's fine"in relation to the example "I don't like it!"
"Note that the color change also applied to the template's italic mode, activated via the "i=y" parameter..."That's fine, but the default is the serif font. I think it would be preferable to have either no font specified or the italic sans-serif as the default (and allow serif as an optional parameter) than using the same font as examples by default. You are meant to use quotation marks anyway when using the {{ tq}} template, which already marks the text visually, so no meaning is lost by not changing the font.
"In such an instance, a better solution is to use the {{ talkquote}} template."That's not a bad idea. I've generally seen {{ tq}} for short quotes (although sometimes used for text spanning several lines) and {{ talkquote}} for longer quotes (several lines, a paragraph, or more), so editors may prefer {{ tq}} for their shorter quotes that happen to be used in conversations that also include examples.
"...it could be accomplished by simply adjusting the coloration of {{ talkquote}} (instead of both templates)."The problem is that the colour for the border of {{ talkquote}} was so light that it would not provide a good contrast ratio if it were used for text in {{ tq}}. — sroc 💬 04:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
It is inherently confusing to have text formatted in a particular stand-out format for contrary purposes.
In any case, as people become conditioned to associate green text with good examples, it seems odd to use virtually the same format for something else entirely, especially given that both often appear in the same discussions. Better to have distinctly different formats to avoid such confusion.
That's fine, but the default is the serif font. I think it would be preferable to have either no font specified or the italic sans-serif as the default (and allow serif as an optional parameter) than using the same font as examples by default.
You are meant to use quotation marks anyway when using the {{ tq}} template, which already marks the text visually, so no meaning is lost by not changing the font.
The problem is that the colour for the border of {{ talkquote}} was so light that it would not provide a good contrast ratio if it were used for text in {{ tq}}.
s=y
parameter to past posts Why does it need to be "major harm"?
A minor inconvenience is still an inconvenience and if we can avoid it, why shouldn't we?
Some uses of {{ tq}} might be better off using {{ talkquote}}, but: (1) I'm not the template police and I don't go about telling people which template I think they should use;
(2) the suggestion to use a different template indicates that the current template is not serving its intended purpose;
(3) short quotes are still better off using {{ tq}} and these cases can still be confused with {{ xt}}.
I'm glad we can agree on making the sans-serif italics the default.
I'm not averse to having a bot deploy the proposed s=y
parameter to past posts (not technically transclusions)
to ensure the current serif format is preserved, but I will leave this to others (it's in the nature of templates that they change, so I'm not sure this is necessary).
#008080
) has a colour contrast with black (#000000
) of 4.40:1, which is even stronger than the current green (4.09:1), so would you not support this change? Or #007B7B
(4.12:1)? Or #007878
(3.96:1)?"adversely impact the majority of {{ tq}}'s usage"if we do it well.
Teal (#008080) has a colour contrast with black (#000000) of 4.40:1, which is even stronger than the current green (4.09:1), so would you not support this change? Or #007B7B (4.12:1)? Or #007878 (3.96:1)?
I don't see how changing the colour/font will necessarily "adversely impact the majority of {{ tq}}'s usage" if we do it well.
By the way, I used a custom CSS to format {{ tq}} and {{ xt}} differently precisely because I was frustrated with this situation; consequently, if someone uses the wrong template, it stands out like a sore thumb.
It may seem like a trivial matter to you, but every so often someone needs to stand up for the seemingly insignificant.
He said "An example of the {{ tq}} template with an example included" above.
An example of the {{ talkquote}} template with an example included (using teal text).
An example of the {{ talkquote}} template with an example included (using black text).
{{
xt}}
, but more than that of {{
xtn}}
. Should not (as current appearance does) attract more attention than the response to it. It should be less contrasty than plain text, so greyish. —
SMcCandlish ☺
☏
¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 04:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)#007878
: He asked "What do you think?"#008560
: He asked "What do you think?"The contrast ratio is: 4.03:1
Passed at Level AA for large text only: If the text is large text (at least 18 point or 14 point bold), the luminosity contrast ratio is sufficient for the chosen colours (#dfefef and #008080).
The contrast ratio is: 17.73:1
Passed at Level AAA: The luminosity contrast ratio is very good for the chosen colours (#dfefef and #000000).
The contrast ratio is: 6.28:1
Passed at Level AA for regular text, and pass at Level AAA for large text: If the text is large text (at least 18 point or 14 point bold), the luminosity contrast ratio is sufficient for the chosen colours at Level AAA; otherwise, Level AA (#dfefef and #006400).
The contrast ratio is: 8.45:1
Passed at Level AAA: The luminosity contrast ratio is very good for the chosen colours (#dfefef and #8B0000).
The contrast ratio is: 4.64:1
Passed at Level AA for regular text, and pass at Level AAA for large text: If the text is large text (at least 18 point or 14 point bold), the luminosity contrast ratio is sufficient for the chosen colours at Level AAA; otherwise, Level AA (#dfefef and #696969).
The contrast ratio is: 8.70:1
Passed at Level AAA: The luminosity contrast ratio is very good for the chosen colours (#dfefef and #002bb8).
The contrast ratio is: 7.38:1
Passed at Level AAA: The luminosity contrast ratio is very good for the chosen colours (#dfefef and #5a3696).
The contrast ratio is: 4.67:1
Passed at Level AA for regular text, and pass at Level AAA for large text: If the text is large text (at least 18 point or 14 point bold), the luminosity contrast ratio is sufficient for the chosen colours at Level AAA; otherwise, Level AA (#dfefef and #cc2200).
#dfefef
) background contrasting well with black foreground text and all the standard link colours and the example template colours. —
sroc
💬 00:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The contrast ratio is: 4.72:1
Passed at Level AA for regular text, and pass at Level AAA for large text: If the text is large text (at least 18 point or 14 point bold), the luminosity contrast ratio is sufficient for the chosen colours at Level AAA; otherwise, Level AA (#dfefef and #36b).
#008080
) on a white background checks out, too: — sroc 💬 00:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)The contrast ratio is: 4.77:1
Passed at Level AA for regular text, and pass at Level AAA for large text: If the text is large text (at least 18 point or 14 point bold), the luminosity contrast ratio is sufficient for the chosen colours at Level AAA; otherwise, Level AA (#fff and #008080).
#f9f9f9
): — sroc 💬 00:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)The contrast ratio is: 4.53:1
Passed at Level AA for regular text, and pass at Level AAA for large text: If the text is large text (at least 18 point or 14 point bold), the luminosity contrast ratio is sufficient for the chosen colours at Level AAA; otherwise, Level AA (#f9f9f9 and #008080).
— Edokter ( talk) — 01:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)The contrast ratio is: 6.98:1
Passed at Level AA for regular text, and pass at Level AAA for large text: If the text is large text (at least 18 point or 14 point bold), the luminosity contrast ratio is sufficient for the chosen colours at Level AAA; otherwise, Level AA (#fff and #006464).
#006464
) looks good, but is even closer to the {{
xt}} colour (#006400
) than the proposed teal (#008080
). I think it would be OK though if the default font for {{
tq}} is changed to a sans-serif font or, better yet, invoked the sans-serif italics by default: We could switch it to make italics the default and useHe said "I don't like it" in relation to the example "I hate it!"
s=y
as an option to implement the serif font, which would still be (slightly) more distinguishable from the example font than it is now: — sroc 💬 05:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)He said "I don't like it" in relation to the example "I hate it!"
"Replacing #008000 with #006464 would reduce the color contrast ratio between the quotations and black text from 4.09:1 to 3.01:1."#008080 actually fares better with a colour contrast of 4.40:1. — sroc 💬 09:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
If I may summarise the common ground on the discussion so far:
i=y
) which uses italics in the default font (example). It would be preferable to adopt this as the default and allow the current serif font as an alternate option (e.g., s=y
where "s" stands for "serif"). However, this alone would not distinguish from the {{
xt}} template (without also changing the colour) because: (a) the output would still be similar where the serif option of {{
tq}} is invoked; (b) quoted text which uses bold/italic formatting may be confused with {{
bxt}}."The template's purpose is to set off quotations from the normal talk page text surrounding them, accomplished via the use of styling and coloration distinct therefrom"), although it has been suggested that this is not necessary ( Edokter:
"The contrast with the text color should not be that high anyway, as that hurts readability").
It is therefore proposed that:
Colours suggested for the {{ tq}} template include:
Colour | Example | Hex code | Contrast with background [1] | Colour difference with surrounding text [2] | Notes | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Monobook ( #f8fcff ) |
Vector / Modern ( #ffffff ) |
Cologne Blue ( #ffffec ) |
{{
Archive top}} ( #edeaff ) |
Black ( #000000 ) |
{{
xt}} ( #006400 ) |
Link (unfollowed) ( #002bb8 ) |
Link (followed) ( #5a3696 )
| ||||
Green | Example | #008000 |
4.98:1 | 5.14:1 | 5.08:1 | 4.36:1 | 128 | 28 | 269 | 314 | Current colour |
Teal (light) | Example | #008080 |
4.63:1 | 4.77:1 | 4.72:1 | 4.05:1 | 256 | 156 | 141 | 186 | Proposed by Reify-tech |
Teal (medium) | Example | #007B7B |
4.94:1 | 5.10:1 | 5.04:1 | 4.32:1 | 246 | 146 | 141 | 186 | Proposed by sroc [Note 1] |
Teal (medium-dark) | Example | #007878 |
5.14:1 | 5.31:1 | 5.25:1 | 4.50:1 | 240 | 140 | 141 | 186 | Proposed by sroc [Note 2] |
Teal (dark) | Example | #006464 |
6.77:1 | 6.98:1 | 6.91:1 | 5.92:1 | 200 | 100 | 141 | 186 | Proposed by Edokter |
Custom shade | Example | #008560 |
4.50:1 | 4.64:1 | 4.59:1 | 3.94:1 | 129 | 241 | 286 | Proposed by David Levy |
Can we reach any consensus on the precise colour? — sroc 💬 14:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
#f8fcff
? That colour is not specified anywhere in
cologneblue.css (unspecified),
modern.css (specifies #f0f0f0
),
monobook.css (#f9f9f9
) or
vector.css (#f3f3f3
). —
sroc
💬 02:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)#008560
) is "sufficiently distinct from" {{
xt}} (#006400
). Take this example: The lighter shades of teal provide better contrast:He said "I didn't propose I didn't do it! but I'll go with it."
#008080
: He said "I didn't propose I didn't do it! but I'll go with it."#007B7B
: He said "I didn't propose I didn't do it! but I'll go with it."#006464
: He said "I didn't propose I didn't do it! but I'll go with it."I appreciate that sudden changes to templates could potentially have some impact on existing statements, but that's inherent in using templates: they can, and do, change over time.
I'm sure any reference to "green text" that suddenly becomes teal will still be understood and such references will soon fall into the archive pages
and be superseded by uses of the revised template with greater clarity between the templates which are currently practically identical.
We have a tool for calculating the contrast of luminosity, but do we have a tool for contrasting different colours (i.e., how easily distinguishable specific shade of "green" and "teal"/"blue-green" are, even if they have similar luminosity)? — sroc 💬 09:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks from me too, SiBr4. I have the same colors, so this confirms that there isn't something peculiar happening on my end. — David Levy 09:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
#007878
) is optimal amongst the proposed options because:
#006400
) and "link blue" (#002bb8
), so it is as far as we can move away from green before becoming too blue.#99ff99 ( Template:Sfp create/ Template:Sfp top), #bff9fc ( Template:Cfd top), #e0e0e0 ( Template:AfC-c), #e3d2fb ( Template:Mfd top), #e3f9df ( Template:Closed/ Template:Tfd top), #e5ecf5 ( Template:Puf top), #e6f2ff ( Template:FAR top), #eeffee ( Template:Poll top/ Template:RM top/ Template:Road top), #f3f9ff ( Template:Afd top/ Template:Archived WikiProject Proposal top/ Template:Cem top/ Template:Ffd top/ Template:Rfc top), #f5f3ef ( Template:Discussion centralize top/ Template:Discussion top/ Template:Election top/ Template:Report top), #f5fff5 ( Template:Fpo1 top/ Template:Rfap/ Template:Rfbagp/ Template:Rfbp), #ff9999 ( Template:Sfp nocreate), #ffeedd ( Template:Rfd top), #fff2e6 ( Template:Flr top/ Template:Fl top) and #fff5f5 ( Template:Fpo top/ Template:Rfaf/ Template:Rfbagf/ Template:Rfbf)
#e6f2ff ( Template:FPR top) and #ffffe0 ( Template:Rfah/ Template:Rfbh)
#eaffea ( Template:Archive top green), #efefef ( Template:Sfdisc top), #ffe4b5 ( Template:Rfcn top) and #ffeaea ( Template:Archive top red).
"This is getting complicated."I doubt whether any of the proposed colours would comply with all of the above and still provide the desired stand-out effect. Take the first example, a bright green (
#99ff99
), which already clashes with the current "TQ green" (4.19:1); your proposed #008560
is worse (3.78:1); my proposed #007878
is an improvement but still fails "AA" grade (4.33:1); the darker #006464
passes "AA" (5.69:1) but has reduced contrast with plain black text and "example green". I suspect that at some point we will need to make a compromise between contrasting with every possible background versus contrasting with the common text colours. It's a shame that there are so many bright background colours used in various templates which make choosing any safe text colour such a headache! —
sroc
💬 21:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)#007878
is probably the best compromise because, putting aside the cornucopia of colour in the above templates, it represents the mid-point between "example green" and "link blue" and it contrasts well with the other main text colours and main backgrounds. It also passes against {{
archive top}}, which is probably the most common of all these templates, and presumably will cope better than average with most of the others, so it's a good compromise. Certainly an improvement on the current green, which fails on several counts at least on the more common colour combinations (black text, "example green", {{
archive top}}, as well as {{
sfp create}} and no doubt others). —
sroc
💬 03:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Comments such as "I perceive plenty of contrast" and "I don't" are unhelpful; we don't know what hardware, software or settings you are using, nor what lighting conditions you are experiencing, and how your eyes function. I have indicated above tool for objectively measuring contrast, and guidelines for the desired levels of contrast. Please use those. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
#5D4A00
) and bright blue (#0000FF
) are clearly different colours and unlikely to be confused; they have a colour difference of 422 (which is high) but a luminosity contrast ratio of 1:1 (identical), so clearly colour difference is the better indication for comparing font colours (but they would be horrible as a foreground/background combination: like this). —
sroc
💬 17:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Expanded table including some additional archive templates:
Colour | Example | Hex code | Luminosity contrast ratio with background | Colour difference with surrounding text | Notes | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Page background | Common archive templates | Plain text | Template | Links | |||||||||||||
Monobook ( #f8fcff )
|
Vector /
Modern ( #ffffff )
|
Cologne Blue ( #ffffec )
|
{{
Archive top}} ( #edeaff )
|
{{
Sfp top}} ( #99ff99 )
|
{{
Mfd top}} ( #e3d2fb )
|
Vector skin ( #252525 )
|
Other skins ( #000000 )
|
{{
xt}} ( #006400 )
|
Internal (unvisited) ( #002bb8 )
|
Internal (visited) ( #5a3696 )
|
External / interwiki ( #3366bb )
|
Nonexistent (unvisited) ( #cc2200 )
|
Nonexistent (visited) ( #a55858 )
| ||||
Green | Example | #008000
|
4.98:1 | 5.14:1 | 5.08:1 | 4.36:1 | 4.19:1 | 3.64:1 | 165 | 128 | 28 | 269 | 314 | 264 | 298 | 293 | Current colour |
Teal (light) | Example | #008080
|
4.63:1 | 4.77:1 | 4.72:1 | 4.05:1 | 3.89:1 | 3.38:1 | 219 | 256 | 156 | 141 | 186 | 136 | 426 | 245 | Proposed by Reify-tech |
Teal (medium) | Example | #007B7B
|
4.94:1 | 5.10:1 | 5.04:1 | 4.32:1 | 4.16:1 | 3.61:1 | 209 | 246 | 146 | 141 | 186 | 136 | 416 | 235 | Proposed by sroc (#1) |
Teal (medium-dark) | Example | #007878
|
5.14:1 | 5.31:1 | 5.25:1 | 4.50:1 | 4.33:1 | 3.76:1 | 203 | 240 | 140 | 141 | 186 | 136 | 410 | 229 | Proposed by sroc (#2) |
Teal (quite dark) | Example | #006A6A
|
6.23:1 | 6.42:1 | 6.35:1 | 5.45:1 | 5.24:1 | 4.55:1 | 175 | 212 | 112 | 141 | 186 | 136 | 382 | 201 | Suggested by sroc (#3) |
Teal (dark) | Example | #006464
|
6.77:1 | 6.98:1 | 6.91:1 | 5.92:1 | 5.69:1 | 4.95:1 | 163 | 200 | 100 | 141 | 186 | 140 | 370 | 189 | Proposed by Edokter |
Custom shade | Example | #008560
|
4.50:1 | 4.64:1 | 4.59:1 | 3.94:1 | 3.78:1 | 3.29:1 | 192 | 129 | 241 | 286 | 173 | 399 | 218 | Proposed by David Levy | |
Legend | < 375:1 < 400:1 < 425:1 < 450:1 | < 75 < 100 < 120 < 140 |
The more background colours we compare against, the more attractive darker text looks to distinguish, but this simultaneously diminishes contrast with surrounding colours. I've added another shade of teal for comparison, although I don't necessarily endorse it as I think it is more important to provide contrast with {{ xt}} (where confusion is more likely to arise) than "AA" compliance with every possible template (where the discussion is closed and the text will nonetheless be readable if a little bit of a strain):
#006A6A
: He said "I didn't propose I didn't do it! but I'll go with it."My preferred option remains #007878
(but I would be happy with a lighter version of teal or a slightly darker version if that's where the consensus lies):
#007878
: He said "I didn't propose I didn't do it! but I'll go with it."— sroc 💬 05:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC) [corrected error in table — sroc 💬 14:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)]
As I said, the shading is merely a visual aid.
The numbers are more telling and the categories where your proposal fails fail quite badly.
As I have also said, I believe it is necessary to strike a balance between distinguishing from common backgrounds
and distinguishing from other colours, hence my attempts to find a middle-ground.
#007B7B
to #006A6A
(with some leeway on either side) that I would be happy with, but I think that #008560
is still too close to #006400
for the difference to stand out. Of course, this isn't about what you or I want, but about reaching consensus, and I'm at least happy that we're moving in the right direction. —
sroc
💬 01:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)I assume by 360% increase, you refer to the change from 28 to 129.
Expressing this as a percentage is misleading since the original 28 is very bad so any change can seem significant by comparison.
If the difference was originally 12, you could claim a 1075% increase,
but that still doesn't mean the new version is really good enough.
We have the opportunity to make the difference much more distinct, yet you seem to be holding out.
The only reason I see for avoiding a shift from green towards blue–green is to avoid conflicting with blue link colours, and this is why I'm trying to find a happy medium.
There's a range of shades from #007B7B to #006A6A (with some leeway on either side) that I would be happy with, but I think that #008560 is still too close to #006400 for the difference to stand out.
#007878
because it is as far as we can go from "example green" towards blue–green before becoming more like "link blue". I added #006A6A
to the table as a further compromise for the sake of comparing another shade trying to balance the luminosity contrast ratio and the colour difference level, but I haven't proposed this colour as such.My point is that such comparisons are unhelpful when the starting point is so skewed.
We should be looking at the end result, not the comparison with what was.
I haven't designated anything as "pass" or "fail" on the "colour difference side".
As I've said, I proposed #007878 because it is as far as we can go from "example green" towards blue–green before becoming more like "link blue".
I'm not sure the best way to objectively demonstrate this, divorced of system settings, monitor settings, visual perception, etc., but to my eyes all the shades of teal look different from "example green" whereas your custom shade looks distinctly green and very similar to "example green".
We did agree on using the tool; the disagreement surrounds how we use it,
since there is no "redline" for a "pass" or "fail" on a particular standard, as far as we are aware.
In absence of an objective standard: it's my view that the optimal position is to find a mid-point between potentially conflicting colours in order to provide as much distance as possible;
it's your view that this is unnecessary,
but I'm not sure why you arrived at the arbitrary colour that you have,
which provides less distinction with black and "example green" than my proposal
and fails the "AA" test against any background other than the default skin backgrounds.
#f8fcff
and barely imperceptible from white, so virtually any shading would fail "AA" standard against your text (other than very light shading which would not interfere with any other text colours)."I attempted to find the bluest possible shade that could reasonably be considered 'green'". If I understand you correctly, you have come at this from the perspective that any substituted colour must be a shade of green; hence, any shade of teal would fail your test as being too blue, irrespective of the objective test results. The whole point of this exercise (i.e., to avoid confusion with "example green") is undermined if a criterion is that the new colour must be green. — sroc 💬 14:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, my apologies for any errors in the table; I assure you they are genuinely errors, probably from the copy-pasting in all the testing;
I have corrected the error you mentioned, but please feel free to correct any others.
I also apologise if you feel that I have mischaracterised your position in my summary; I am trying to understand your point of view better.
I did not mean to imply that I had tested your colour against every template background colour that exists; my point was that your custom shade is right on the border with the darkest of the skin backgrounds, which itself is very light #f8fcff
and barely imperceptible from white,
so virtually any shading would fail "AA" standard against your text (other than very light shading which would not interfere with any other text colours).
What concerns me is your comment: "I attempted to find the bluest possible shade that could reasonably be considered 'green'". If I understand you correctly, you have come at this from the perspective that any substituted colour must be a shade of green; hence, any shade of teal would fail your test as being too blue, irrespective of the objective test results.
The whole point of this exercise (i.e., to avoid confusion with "example green") is undermined if a criterion is that the new colour must be green.
Please do not edit my previous comments;
Please feel free to update the table to include the interwiki link colour, which would be great, and let's revisit the colour options once we have that data.
As I mentioned below, in order for this change to be effective in distinguishing {{ tq}} and {{ xt}}, I think that it is best both: (a) to tweak the colour of this template; and (b) to make the italics option the default. I believe you agree on this, we just haven't settled on the exact colour yet.
If only the colour changes, however, I'm not convinced that this will be enough to avoid confusion between these templates.
I trust you understand where I am coming from, even if you disagree.
"Please do not edit my previous comments"line didn't come across as suggesting you would; I noted that you had said you wouldn't in your earlier comment and meant only to acknowledge my appreciation for that.
#3366bb
) is closer to all shades of teal (colour difference: 136) than your custom shade (colour difference: 173). Even so, this is not much different than the result for the internal link colour (#002bb8
), which is only slightly further from teal (colour difference: 140). I would still prefer medium-dark teal (#007878
) to your custom shade (#008560
) on the basis that:
"mitigating the problem"rather than resolving it).
Change colour only | Change colour and font style |
---|---|
Whereas I previously said "I'm not convinced", I can compare this with examples like this and see that they could still be confused. | Whereas I previously said "I'm not convinced", I can contrast this with examples like this and see that they are probably far enough apart. |
I note that this colour (#3366bb) is closer to all shades of teal (colour difference: 136) than your custom shade (colour difference: 173). Even so, this is not much different than the result for the internal link colour (#002bb8), which is only slightly further from teal (colour difference: 140).
it provides a more even difference from all of the text colours in consideration, including {{ xt}} (I acknowledge that you disagree with this reasoning);
it provides greater contrast with backgrounds with some shading beyond the default skin backgrounds (although I agree that this is not a paramount consideration and we would be better off dispensing with dark backgrounds in templates altogether).
Despite this, upon further consideration, I think I could justify settling on your custom shade for {{ tq}} provided that the italics option (or some formatting other than the current serif) is set as the default, which should hopefully be enough to avoid confusion with {{ xt}}.
If that change doesn't happen, then I fear all of this will have been in vain (so, no, I would be disappointed with merely "mitigating the problem" rather than resolving it).
If you would support a change to Levy custom shade italics, would you also agree with updating the border of {{ talkquote}} to match, since the templates are related?
Regarding the colour, I dispute that I "seek to downplay the distinction" regarding the shading.
I admitted that the numbers for each shaded range were arbitrary, but not baseless.
The numbers are what's important here, but the colours serve their purpose, too, providing a visual cue of where problems lie.
You can change the colours and gradients and fill them throughout the table like a temperature chart if you like, but I'd prefer we didn't abandon the shading altogether.
I was rather hoping that we had agreed on a colour – the custom shade you had proposed – that this would be redundant now, anyway.
Regarding the font formatting, I still think the simplest way to go is make italics the default, since this is already an option that many editors will be familiar with and indeed you prefer yourself;
if the loss of emphasis is an issue, the template can be adjusted so that wiki markup can switch italics to non-italics within the template.
Actually, what's the serif font that's recently been introduced for headings?
"I arbitrarily chose 140 since the comparison between all varieties of teal being considered with the unvisited link colour was 141, so it seemed like as good a place as any the draw a line in the sand. The shading is really just a visual aid to help see where the problem areas lie."Then:
"The numbers are more telling..."Then:
"In absence of an objective standard: it's my view that the optimal position is to find a mid-point between potentially conflicting colours in order to provide as much distance as possible"so the shading marks that mid-point. It's not about which colours "seem good" or "seem bad", but reflecting the points I have already discussed, and I find the colours helpful, not to show "right"/"wrong" or "pass"/"fail" but "better"/"worse"; you disagree, and I respect your opinion.
#000000
) has been replaced with #252525
, so I suppose this should be updated in the table, too? —
sroc
💬 13:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)I first wrote: "I arbitrarily chose 140 since the comparison between all varieties of teal being considered with the unvisited link colour was 141, so it seemed like as good a place as any the draw a line in the sand. The shading is really just a visual aid to help see where the problem areas lie."
Then: "The numbers are more telling..."
Then: "In absence of an objective standard: it's my view that the optimal position is to find a mid-point between potentially conflicting colours in order to provide as much distance as possible" so the shading marks that mid-point."
It's not about which colours "seem good" or "seem bad",
but reflecting the points I have already discussed, and I find the colours helpful, not to show "right"/"wrong" or "pass"/"fail" but "better"/"worse";
you disagree, and I respect your opinion.
Meanwhile, I note at mw:Typography refresh#Why did we change the body text color? that black (#000000) has been replaced with #252525, so I suppose this should be updated in the table, too?
<del>
and <ins>
(or just create a new table) so that the intervening commentary still makes sense.I'm sure you understand this by now, but for the avoidance of doubt, I didn't choose 140 because it suited my colour; it represented the mid-point out of the colours that were being compared.
In hindsight, it would have been better to apply a gradient across the whole table to reflect that "better" and "worse" are on a continuum and to avoid the perception of a specific tipping point.
I see that you have updated the tables including some of the spacing of the wiki markup, but I assume none of the figures that were already in the table have changes;
I appreciate the respect that you have demonstrated in our discussions. Thanks again for your civil approach – often easy to be misconstrued in text-based conversations.
If this discussion has taught us anything, it's that backgrounds colours in templates are bad ideas that lead to trouble finding text colours that contrast well. We'd be better off toning down the borders and reducing (or removing) the background colour.
He said
"This is what is looks like"when quoting within a block of text.
He said
"This is what is looks like"when quoting within a block of text.
#008560
on #f2fefc
has a luminosity contrast ratio of 4.50:1. The visual cues of the border and the text colour should be more than enough to mark the quoted text despite the reduction in background shading. —
sroc
💬 22:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)@
Edokter: I'm all for implementing this at {{
talkquote}}. I'm not sure whether we've reached a consensus on {{
tq}}: I think we've resolved on a colour (
David Levy's #008560
), but I only agree that this solves the initial problem if the sans-serif italics option is made the default, which has met some opposition (see the below discussion which has fallen silent). In any case, both templates should reflect the same colour (i.e., the border in {{
talkquote}} should match the text in {{
tq}}). —
sroc
💬 13:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
#008560
would be a step in the right direction, although not enough overall. Similarly,
Edokter's #006464
combined with sans-serif italics would help to differentiate from {{
xt}}, but a stronger colour difference would be preferable in cases where the serif option is invoked. I'm tired of debating over colours though and will go wherever the consensus falls. —
sroc
💬 20:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)#008560
. It wasn't either party's first preference, but we weighed the evidence and reached a compromise. That's what establishing
consensus is all about: not sticking to one view and defending it to the death, but discussing the issues to reach an agreeable solution.#008560
, but if you persuaded David to accept #006464
then I would go along with this. In either case, I think some other font formatting is needed, and my money's on sans-serif italics as this is the optional format already in use that people will be most familiar with, but if the tide of opinion favour some other formatting, so be it; the important thing to my mind is to move away from the current font-family, at least as the default.#008560
. —
sroc
💬 23:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)On a related note, I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility#Background colours on templates. — sroc 💬 06:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
#007878
):
Another alternative might be to adopt another different font ..." and I agreed.
Another alternative might be to adopt another different font ..." and I agreed.
"you seem to want to use three attributes"misrepresents my position, and to extrapolate
"four or five"even moreso; nor have I ever suggested
"more is better".
It may not be the way HTML handles it, but that's how it works in the real world. 01:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)If something within a run of italics needs to be italicized itself, the type is normally switched back to non-italicized ( roman) type: "I think The Scarlet Letter had a chapter about that, thought Mary". In this example, the title ("The Scarlet Letter") is within an italicized thought process and therefore this title is non-italicized.
<em>...</em>
) when quoting, in order to use the same markup for a purpose for which it is specifically discouraged, "It is normally incorrect to put quotations in italics. They should only be used if the material would otherwise call for italics, such as for emphasis or to indicate use of non-English words." -- RexxS ( talk) 15:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
If you’re already writing in italics and you need to use italics, you COULD use boldface or underlining, but the generally accepted practice seems to be to UNitalicize. Let’s say I was writing to you about a great book about the making of the film Casablanca, my favorite movie. I would type it like this: I’m reading this great book called The Making of Casablanca: Everyone’s Favorite Movie. Notice that everything’s in italics except the name of the film
Because italic (sloping) type contrasts with roman (vertical) type, a writer can require words or passages to be typeset in italics in order to call special attention to them, to give them special meaning, or to distinguish them from the rest of his or her text. [...]
Note that when the main body of a text is printed in italics, roman type is used for emphasis and for the other purposes described in this chapter.
By the way, if you must emphasize a word or phrase within a long passage of italics, just use roman text.
By convention, if something is in italics and something within it would otherwise be italicized, then it's put in normal type.
I never really understood why user quotes need to be so 'fancy' anyway. This is highly confusing with {{ xt}}, and quotes are not examples. How about going back to basics here and "just go like this"? — Edokter ( talk) — 10:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)