Re: Comment 2476 (and indirectly comment 2376

On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Sheena McCullagh
<sheena.mccullagh@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Not sure whether this is a formal objection, some of what you have done has
> made things better, but one major change, ie G 156 has made things much,
> much worse and will largely hamstring dyslexics like myself and to a certain
> extent others who need specific colour combinations.
>
> Firstly, thank you for removing the requested sections, that is a great help
> to those of us whom need specific colours.
>
> Now to the problems (suggest solution right at the bottom, rationale is in
> the body of this email):
>
> Both I in 2476, and Bim Egan in 2376, were trying to explain that the only
> easy way that dyslexics (myself included) and others with cognitive
> impairments can get the colours we need is for the web writers to NOT
> specify colours, ie G148, which has now been added into 1.4.8 (Sufficient
> techniques).  I rather rambled, Bim was more succinct:
>
> 'If authors DO specify all foreground and background colors, it is virtually
> impossible for users to select their preferred, or required, choice, without
> also losing visual clues to menu bars etc. Colour is an important aid to
> recognising menu content when reading is difficult.
>
> Shouldn't the first sufficient technique ask authors to refrain from
> specifying inessential foreground and background colors for substantial
> blocks of text?'
>
> I stated that:
>
> 'Bullet point four - this is the only one that really works,'.
>
> Unfortunately at the time both Bim and I were commenting this bullet point,
> ie 'Using a technology that has commonly-available user agents that can
> change the foreground and background of blocks of text (General, future
> link) ', had not been written up, it is now G 156.  At the time I did not
> appreciate that this meant we would have to over-ride specified colours.  I
> do not feel that anyone could possibly have known this as:
>
> 1  It is in effect virtually the same as the old bullet point one, (now the
> amended bullet point 3)
>
> 2  It is not generally anything to do with web writing.  It is exceedingly
> rare, in my experience, for a web writer to over-ride these controls so in
> most situations control is purely down to the browser (and in the case of IE
> 6, the system settings) the person uses and therefore it is nothing the web
> writer is 'using', as per first word of the guideline.
>
> 3  If you over-ride specified colours in FF and Netscape most Java Script
> pop-up boxes and drop-down menus become unusable.  Pop-up boxes gain a
> transparent back-ground, so super-imposing the text of the box on the text
> of the page and the drop-down menus either go transparent or gain a
> dark-grey, and unchangeable background.  I have good screen shots of this
> phenomenon occurring across a range of sites, which I am sending to you via
> a separate email.  (Not attaching to this one just in case it makes the file
> size too large).  Ironically enough FF is the only one of the browsers that
> has a built-in dictionary, a real boon for we dyslexics when filling in
> forms, however it is often when we are trying to complete forms that we have
> the JS issues described here.  IE doesn't have these JS issues, but doesn't
> have a dictionary either.  So over-riding becomes a real no-win situation
> for us.
>
> 4  It is, as I understand it, impossible to actually pass this guideline
> because IE 6 works completely differently to IE 7 in relation to setting
> background colours.  In effect, if you pass for IE 6, you fail for IE 7 and
> vice versa.  IE 6 had a well known issue where it wouldn't over-ride
> background colours in the browser unless the same background colour had also
> been selected in the system settings.  This caused tremendous problems for
> people needing accessibility settings when using public access computers in
> cyber cafes, public libraries etc.  Some web sites managed to code their
> pages so that they corrected the IE 6 problem, but in doing so, when IE 7
> was released those pages now showed the problems in IE7 that had been
> present on the majority of sites in IE 6.  Unfortunately in the UK vast
> swathes of public access machines are still on IE 6.  It is therefore unsafe
> to quote IE as allowing colours to be changed in the browser without
> specifying which versions of IE will and won't.  For an example, view the
> following site in both IE 6 and 7.  Try and over-ride the background colour
> in the browser alone.  This was one site which corrected the IE 6 fault, but
> now doesn't 'work' properly in IE 7.  For the best effect set the browser
> colours to yellow text on a black background, ie the 'common' Visually
> Impaired combination -
> http://www.firstgroup.com/ukbus/wales/swwales/home/index.php
>
> When I commented that this was the only one that works, I had thought you
> meant a non-Java based equivalent to 'Providing a multi color selection tool
> on the page for foreground and background colors', as I already knew the
> information in points 1 to 4 above, it never crossed my mind that you could
> possibly mean over-riding specified colours, but it appears that you do:
>
> Examples
>
>
>
>
> A Web page is designed using HTML and CSS to specify the foreground and
> background colors. The user sets their own colors in Internet Explorer 7 and
> they can view the content with their chosen foreground and background
> colors.
>
>
> A Web page is designed using HTML and CSS. There is a link on the page to
> instructions on how to set colors in various browsers.
>
> This is the worst possible case scenario and completely counteracts the
> benefits of G148.  Under no circumstances should G156 be used as a way to
> pass this criteria.
>
> Within G156 you have given a link to the BBC accessibility pages.  Living in
> the UK and the BBC being our main TV channel, I know this site well.  I
> agree that their accessibility information is second to none (but even they
> don't comment on the above IE 6 problem).  However, when you actually try to
> apply the settings to their web site as a whole, it becomes unusable, as it
> does with large numbers (vast majority?) of web sites.
>
> View their home page - http://www.bbc.co.uk/ without over-riding specified
> colours, then over-ride them, it doesn't matter in what combination, just
> the act of over-riding makes the whole page unusable, especially in FF.
> Graphics disappear and writing superimposes on existing graphics to make the
> text unreadable.  This phenomenon is exacerbated if you also need large size
> text as they have failed to allow sufficient room for text expansion (try 32
> point in FF).  We dyslexics, and others who need specific combinations, find
> this again and again with web sites.  Over-ride should only be used as a
> very last resort, yet you are recommending that colours are specified
> meaning that over-ride would have to be used at all times.  Ironically G
> 148, is the only guaranteed way to pass a double A criterion, yet G156 is a
> triple A.  Theoretically Triple A should be better than double A, but in
> this case the converse is true.
>
> Try this on your home page as well - http://www.w3.org/  While it doesn't
> fall over in the same way that the BBC one does, all visual clues of banner
> colours etc are lost.  These additional visual clues are essential to
> dyslexics, something both Bim and I pointed out to you, but you
> mis-understood in your reply to Bim 'We agree that it is important not to
> specify some but not all of the colors.' and 'Specifying all foreground and
> background color attributes of any given element in CSS', when Bim had
> clearly stated that authors should refrain from this (see first quote in
> this email).
>
> You seemed to understand the same comment when I made it, but declined 'We
> did not include the proposed, "Specifying foreground and background colors
> of banners, features and navigation in CSS while not specifying foreground
> and background colors of the main content of the page in CSS and/or HTML
> (future link)" in 1.4.8. We felt that it could not be listed as a sufficient
> technique because, if we are understanding it correctly, it would make it
> difficult for users who need to change the foreground and background colors
> for the entire page to do so.'
>
> That comment is decidedly interesting.  If you are saying that specifying
> part of a page makes changing colours difficult, what is G 156 doing in
> there as a success.  It's no more difficult to change part of a page than it
> is to change all of a page, you do exactly the same in the browser settings
> regardless of the amount you are trying to change.
>
> I accept that those who need specific combinations across the whole page, eg
> Visually Impaired people using gold text on a black ground, would have to
> over-ride if any part of the page colouring was specified and the attendant
> problems that causes, eg BBC site and JS listed above.  However, I cannot
> see web writers accepting that they are not allowed to specify any colours
> and what's more, that creates problems for dyslexics with the loss of
> attendant visual clues.
>
> The whole point Bim and I were making is that peripheral items eg navigation
> bars should have colourings specified, but leave the main text areas of the
> page unspecified.  As someone who is dyslexic and has spoken to many other
> dyslexics, short of a web site offering a Java type selection tool where we
> can specify specific blocks, eg navigation, headers etc, the suggestion Bim
> and I both made is the best possible solution.  Most dyslexics can manage
> small amounts, eg navigation, in any colour combination, but need our
> specific combinations to read the text body of the page, ie the main
> content.  Small web site would often not have either the skill and/or
> resources to provide such a selection tool, but could create perfectly
> accessible, from a cognitive disability perspective, web sites by combining
> the current items 2 and 3 in sufficient techniques first requirement, yet
> currently these two are mutually exclusive.
>
> The following web site is largely the model I would recommend, OK they have
> made errors in that there are places where link and heading text are
> specified and backgrounds aren't, but in the context I'm talking about, the
> main body text and background can be changed to any colours without needing
> to over-ride within the browser.  This means that we keep our additional
> visual clues of coloured headings, navigation and separator bars but can
> still read the body of the page.  The site is a very large one so these
> additional colours are essential to readily tell what part of the site you
> are in.  However, if you over-ride the specified colours, we loose these
> essential additional clues (and in certain places have the JS problems see
> screen shots in separate email).  Try a variety of combinations and you will
> see what I mean about the ease with which colours can be set:
>
> In FF (1.5 and 2) Tools/Options/Content/Colours - uncheck 'Use system
> colours', then set the four boxes to any colours you desire.  Select OK
> twice and the page will have changed colour.  Please choose at least one
> combination with a background other than white.  Now do the same, but
> over-riding the specified colours, ie following the BBC instructions and
> look at the difference.
>
> Please also try IE 6 and 7 again over-riding and not over-riding.  The BBC
> instructions give how to over-ride, for the not over-riding test, simply
> ignore the accessibility tab instructions.  In IE 6, you will see the
> problem of the background not changing for the specified sections of the
> page.
>
> Here is the link -
> http://www.bristol.gov.uk/ccm/content/Leisure-Culture/Libraries/invitation-to-save-money.en
>
> I'm sorry this has rambled on so long, but this is a subject exceptionally
> dear to my heart, it is something I live, both as a dyslexic and a web
> writer.
>
> Please, I beg you, remove G 156 and amend the sufficient techniques first
> requirement to allow sites to combine items 2 and 3 as suggested above.
>
> Sheena McCullagh

---------------------------------------------
Response from Working Group:
---------------------------------------------
First, we would like to thank you for your detailed explanation and
examples of the issues. We have added three new sufficient techniques:

1. Specifying text and background colors of secondary content such as
banners, features and navigation in CSS while not specifying text and
background colors of the main content. (future link)

2. Specifying borders and layout in CSS to delineate areas of a web
page while not specifying text and text-background colors.

3. Providing an additional stylesheet that does not specify colors for
the main content body

We have also added User Agents notes and additional description to
G156 to describe the problems that may occur if G156 is used
inappropriately.

Thanks again for the interest that you have taken in these guidelines.
Could we ask you to let us know whether or not you are satisfied with
this response by Wed, April 16?

Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact

On behalf of the WCAG Working Group

Received on Friday, 11 April 2008 17:26:00 UTC