W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > June 2011

RE: Checked metadata examples and RDF files

From: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 08:17:50 -0700 (PDT)
To: <tmichel@w3.org>
Cc: <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01c601cc2d01$b6d0b490$24721db0$@edu>
Hello Thierry,

As a long-time lurker on this list, and as a member of the WAI gang (and a
current co-chair of the A11yTF of HTML5), I just wanted to make note that
using color alone here is problematic for many users of various types of
visual impairment - certainly any blind user will be completely shut out,
but also any user who has color-blindness may be affected, with red/green
color blindness the most common type of this condition there is
(http://www.colblindor.com/2010/03/16/red-green-color-blindness/).
Finally, the contrast colors of the "red" category (the blue hyperlinks on
red background) are likely insufficient in contrast for some low-vision
users.

What I might suggest instead is to use some other form of visual notation
key to track the status of the various work products. For example, rather
than using red / green / yellow you could append each item with something
like [V] / [NV] / [CV] for Validated, Not Validated, and Cannot Validate,
such as:

<tr>
 <td>Cablelabs_RDF [V]</td>
 <td>Cablelabs_TTL [V]</td>
 <td>Cablelabbs ADI 1.1 Example [NV]</td>
</tr>

If there is a desire to continue to use color, you may still do so (watch
your foreground/background contrast), but relying on color *alone* is a
contradiction/contravention of W3C's WCAG2 Recommendations, and I think we
would all agree that the W3C should be eating its own dog-food, yes? If I
can assist in any way in helping with remediation please do not hesitate
to let me know - I would be happy to help.

Cheers!

JF
============================
John  Foliot
Program Manager
Stanford Online Accessibility Program
http://soap.stanford.edu
Stanford University
Tel: 650-468-5785

---
Co-chair - W3C HTML5 Accessibility Task Force (Media)
http://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/HTML/wiki/Main_Page

============================





> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-
> annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Thierry MICHEL
> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 5:01 AM
> To: Evain, Jean-Pierre
> Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Checked metadata examples and RDF files
>
>
> Jean Pierre,
>
>
> OK I get it now, the email was missing the color for the wrong 'green'
> text as in the HTML page .
>
> Please read:
>
> Files marked in green are validated (RDF validated, XML well formed or
> TTL valid)
> Files marked in red are not valid (RDF invalid, XML not well formed or
> TTL invalid))
> Files marked in yellow can not be validated (binary files for example).
>
>
> I must be the Daltonian ...
>
> Thierry
>
> Le 17/06/2011 13:41, Evain, Jean-Pierre a écrit :
> > All marked in green ;-) is one greener than the other?
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-
> annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Thierry MICHEL
> > Sent: vendredi, 17. juin 2011 11:55
> > To: public-media-annotation@w3.org
> > Subject: Checked metadata examples and RDF files
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I have check the multimedia metadata formats from the testsuite
> >
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/drafts/ontology10/testsuite
> .html
> >
> > Status:
> >
> > - Files marked in green are validated (RDF validated or XML well
> formed)
> > - Files marked in green are not valid (RDF valid or XML not well
> formed)
> > - Files marked in green can not be validated (binary files for
> example)
> >
> >
> > Missing Files
> > *************
> >
> > We are still missing the following RDF files
> > MRSS
> > TXF
> > Flash
> >
> > RDF Files invalid
> > *****************
> > EXIF_RDF
> > QT_RDF
> > 3GP_RDF
> > MP4_RDF
> >
> >
> > XML Files invalid
> > *****************
> > Cablelabbs ADI 1.1 Example
> > IPTC_Example (empty file) please resend JP.
> > TXF_Example
> >
> > TTL Files invalid
> > ******************
> > EXIF_TTL
> > QT_TTL
> > 3GP_TTL
> > MP4_TTL
> >
> >
> > Please send me your validated files.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Note that the above only checks the syntax of the documents but not
> the
> > completeness of the properties.
> >
> > We will have to manually check these file and probably assign
> reviewers.
> >
> > Thierry.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------
> > **************************************************
> > This email and any files transmitted with it
> > are confidential and intended solely for the
> > use of the individual or entity to whom they
> > are addressed.
> > If you have received this email in error,
> > please notify the system manager.
> > This footnote also confirms that this email
> > message has been swept by the mailgateway
> > **************************************************
> >
Received on Friday, 17 June 2011 15:18:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:42 UTC