Documentation moved to Template:Storm_colour/doc

Discussion

Nominating for deletion

I'm going to nominate the following orphaned templates for deletion at WP:TFD (barring any objections before I get to it). These were found using Special:Prefixindex (specifically, using this query).

Two of those, subtropical and extratropical, had already been orphaned. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

test of fallthrough

S: C0C0C0
catS: C0C0C0
STY: FF738A

should all give ff6699 _→AzaToth 15:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

weird colors

What are the STS and strong colors? In the track maps there are just 7 colors: depression, storm, cat1, cat2, cat3, cat4, cat5. I fear that adding other colors or finer levels of distinction will only add confusion by diluting the color associations. There are about 7 different types of gale (35-70 mph winds) but we don't have different colors for each of them. — jdorje (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The West Pacific uses a severe tropical storm designation (48-63 kts). Presumably it would be used in {{HurricaneActive}}; there is no need for it in the track map.--Nilfanion 23:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really like to keep things simple for the color. Calling a storm a Severe Tropical Storm is a good thing but if the track map doesn't show it we shouldn't have a separate color for it. It should just use the TS or Cat1 color, depending on the wind speed. — jdorje (talk) 04:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colors and accessibility guidelines

I recently fixed the colors in this template so that they were not in violation of WP:CONTRAST, but was reverted. Dark text on dark backgrounds is not readable to people with poor vision. If dark colors are preferred, it would be better to create a new set of templates that do not use the colors as a background for text. Kaldari (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you were reverted was because i felt you needed to talk to the Project about the colours before you went and changed them, especially as the colours were spoken about a few years ago and i believe deliberately chosen to match the Saffir Simpson Hurricane Scale. I also believe that there was a major edit war over them before I joined the project in 2007/8.Jason Rees (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't change the hues, I just lightened some of them to be in compliance with WP:CONTRAST. The discussion you cited is from 7 years ago, before the accessibility guidelines even existed. Regardless, I will bring up the topic at WikiProject Tropical cyclones to see if anyone objects. Kaldari (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the change I would like to propose:

Old	F5	F4	F3	F2	F1	STS	DEP	UNK
New	F5	F4	F3	F2	F1	STS	DEP	UNK

As you can see, the F1 F5 color is the main one that needs to be changed. If you squint your eyes and look at all of the old colors, it is readily apparent that the F1 F5 text will be difficult to read for some people. Kaldari (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly see little difference, so I oppose, since that would require changing every single tropical cyclone track map worldwide. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal is not related to track maps, only the colors used by this template. There would be no need to change anything else. Kaldari (talk) 03:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But if we were to change the 2000+ transclusions of this template, we would have to change the track maps to be consistent. I personally think the new Cat 5 colour doesnt work that well, while i think the new Cat 4 works well.Jason Rees (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? The storm categories are still represented by the same hues, just slightly different brightnesses. And isn't it more important to make sure people have access to the text information rather than having the header color exactly match the color in the tracking map? Kaldari (talk) 03:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, keep in mind that compliance with the Manual of Style is required for Featured article candidates, of which, hurricanes are a common subject. Kaldari (talk) 03:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because I think the colour is too bright. Also I seriously doubt people will loose access to the text information represented by the cat 5 colour just because its "too dark".Jason Rees (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. United States Man (talk) 03:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason: I'm not sure if we're understanding each other. I'm saying that some people cannot read the text on the red background because the contrast between the background color and the text is not sufficient (according to the WCAG 2.0 contrast ratio formula). I'm not saying that they will lose access to the information represented by the cat 5 colour because it is too dark. Kaldari (talk) 04:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what you mean by the F1 color being hard to see. To me, the F2 color is harder to see. Anyway, I don't see enough of a difference to support this change, so I object as well. United States Man (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not the color, the text on top of the color. The difference is that it complies with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines and our own guidelines. Kaldari (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my eyes may be different from your's because looking at the table, it looks like the F5 is hardest to see because red is the darkest color. United States Man (talk) 03:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I see that I wrote 'F1' instead of 'F5'. That was a typo. Sorry about that! Kaldari (talk) 03:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay. United States Man (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To make it more clear what the difference is, if you apply the WCAG 2.0 contrast ratio formula to the old colors and our text link colors, some of the old colors have a contrast ratio that is below the AA guidelines (the minimum required by our guidelines). I've simply brightened them to the point of passing the guidelines. Kaldari (talk) 03:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The color used for Category 5 looks very similar to the ones used for Typhoons, but they are not meant to be equivalent. Potapych (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposals

As there seems to be resistance to changing the colors of the template, I'll suggest some other ways that the problem can be solved:

Remove the header color from Infobox hurricanes – it isn't really needed since the text in the header tells you the category of the storm
Use the color as a border around the text or bar underneath the text, or show it in a box beside the text
Change the text and link colors for cat-5 headers – if the text were white and the links light yellow, it would probably have sufficient contrast
Increase the font size of the header to at least 18px

Any of these solutions should bring Infobox hurricane into compliance with WP:CONTRAST. Which of these solutions would be the best to implement? Kaldari (talk) 04:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think numbers 1 and 3 are ridiculous and 2 is not far from it. Not attacking Kaldari, but I really disagree with all of these. United States Man (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How would you suggest that we bring the infobox into compliance with WP:CONTRAST so that visually impaired readers can read the headers? Kaldari (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, although I did say that I disagreed with all of those, I guess number 4 is okay. Would you be willing to settle with that one? United States Man (talk) 05:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll accept any solution that can find consensus. Kaldari (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, as long as the others will hop on board it should be good. United States Man (talk) 05:29, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... wait! I'm a member of the accessibility project. Kaldari made a mistake in the methodology for contrast evaluation. You see, the old algorithm for testing contrast was focused on color difference. It was difficult to comply to, and was abandoned in favor of the luminosity algorithm. You can see the difference for yourself at http://snook.ca/technical/colour_contrast/colour.html

If you enter "000000" (black) as a foreground color, and "FF6060" (red) as a background color, you will get the following results.

Old guideline: Color difference 447, success for the old W3C guideline is set at 500, while Hewlett-Packard set the threshold at 400. So the result indicated is "sort of compliant".
New guideline: The contrast ratio is 7.09:1, which is WCAG 2.0 AAA compliant. In short, it has the best score it could get.

There is no problem with the black text on the set of colors chosen in this template.

However, as you can see in Hurricane Hugo for example, links are often included in the header of the infobox. Foreground "0945AD" (blue links) on "FF6060" (red) fail to comply to WCAG 2.0 AA level. In conclusion, either the links have to be moved somewhere else in the infobox, either the set of colors will have to be changed indeed. I hope it helps. Dodoïste (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned above that I was using the link text color (#0645AD) as the basis for the contrast comparison, as all of the hurricane headers include a link. The replacement color I have proposed is the closest possible to the existing color that achieves the 4.5:1 contrast ratio (WCAG 2.0 AA) with both the text and link colors (it scores 4.51 to be exact). I'm not even proposing we try to meet the AAA level of compliance, only AA, which is relatively liberal. Kaldari (talk) 23:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could live without the link to the scales in the infoboxes since its an overlink imo.Jason Rees (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]