W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > March 2008

review off the different resolutions on my comments

From: aurélien levy <aurelien.levy@free.fr>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:00:37 +0100
Message-ID: <47D66655.1060509@free.fr>
To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org

Comment 1: missing situations in SC 1.4.1
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0002.html
(Issue ID: 2379)

ok with : "Situation A: If the color of particular words or backgrounds is used
to indicate information" 

We are still missing the case of people using name of color instead of color itself like click on red , click on blue, red or blue are not the color of particular words or backgrounds it can be plain black text on white background. I can indicate colors just by writing words and not by using colors

------------

Comment 5: very similar in color to the body text condition
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0001.html
(Issue ID: 2378)


you say : 
"if the author is not relying on color at all, then the link could be
similar in color or not similar in color and it wouldn't make any
difference since the color would be redundant with other cues."

it's true but I can rely on color if the color difference is enought. People who are colors blind will still see different Grey. I just had to check if the colors I used produce different Grey with a certain minimum difference value.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 6: 5 is too much and missing exceptions
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0004.html
(Issue ID: 2381)

you say : 
"We reviewed a variety of popular Web sites and we only found a few
places on a couple of pages where 5:1 was not met. Also note that
logos are already excepted."

I didn't know witch website you test but during my own test on alexa top 500 most visited website and fortune global 500 2007 compagny website most of them failed. Here is an extract :
- https://www.bankofamerica.com/
- http://www.pg.com/
- http://www.youtube.com/
- http://www.live.com/
- http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx
- http://www.ebay.com/
- http://www.dailymotion.com
- http://www.amazon.com/
- http://www.gm.com/
- http://www.yahoo.com/
- http://www.msn.com/
- http://www.myspace.com/
- http://fr.facebook.com/
- http://www.walmart.com/
- http://www.ge.com/
- http://www.att.com/
- http://www.cisco.com/
- http://www.coca-cola.com/template1/index.jsp?locale=en_US
- http://www.merck.com/
- http://www.manpower.com/
- http://www.apple.com/
- http://www.gap.com/

and governmental/non profit website is not better :
- http://www.un.org/
- http://www.whitehouse.gov/
- http://www.senate.gov/
- http://www.nato.int/home-fr.htm
- http://www.redcross.org/
- even http://www.w3.org/

Furthermore, I don't see where is the exception for Logo, color combinaison and image of text who is part of a Corporate Visual guideline done before the introduction of this new criteria. It's not always pure decoration or incidental.

By the way, reading the guideline again, I see another problem. You give the size of the font with point unit "14 point bold or 18 point". On the web most of the font are in pixel, em, %, keyword. I think it's better to say in the large scale definition :
"with at least a visual rendering of 18px or 14px bold
through the browser with the default settings 

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 7: clarifications needed on SC 1.4.5
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0007.html
(Issue ID: 2384)

My first question : "What about the use of font like futura who are not basic web font but near to them? did I need to replace it ?" is on image of text not on text only sorry for that. 

For example, Safari support font embedding but others browsers don't. Even if the future version of others browsers may support it there will still have some old browser out there.

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 8: alternative to text with external text ?
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0009.html
(Issue ID: 2385)

Ok so I can say that a video is an alternative to text only if it was embed directly on the same page containing same information as the text ?
You don't give me an answer on how it's changing the user experience in regard of the situation where the text is directly in the page and video is not. As far as I know it may be an even better user experience if the video is played in an external player because this way user can have more control on the settings

----------------------------------------------------------
Comment 12: SC 3.1.2 - needs another exception
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0011.html
(Issue ID: 2401)

you say : Words such as "podcast" would not require a new exception since they
are already covered by the existing exception, "...except for ...
words or phrases that have become part of the vernacular of the
immediately surrounding text."

I disagree podcast is not part of the vernacular in french. We already have a french translation for that word "*diffusion pour baladeur"*. So we need another exception for word who can be read without any trouble (same phonetics or good spelling) in the language of the surrounding text.

finally please give a definition of what is a word who is part of the vernacular (the word must be at least in one dictionary or two or more or none? If it's none you can be sure that everybody will add all the word they want in the vernacular)
 
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 11:00:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 17 July 2011 06:13:25 GMT