RE: [Issue 317] Color

As part of SWAP we have a CSS conversion thing

Something like:

1 CSS to xml 
2 lots of fun XSL stuff - that can be based on user preference and user
scenario
3, back to CSS (including ACSS that is getting depreciated -thanks
guys...)

Lots of flexible rules stuff in there to (it had a good architect :)

What if we made that separate from SWAP and freely available...


All the best
Lisa Seeman
 
Visit us at the UB Access website
UB Access - Moving internet accessibility
 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 4:44 AM
> To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: [Issue 317] Color
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting comments.
> 
> Hmmmm
> 
> If the text is colored... then it by definition can be read 
> by the User Agent or it wouldn't be able to render it red.  
> 
> If the colored information is a line or something in a 
> graphic - then it
> would need to be described.   
> 
> All of this would give the information to someone who is 
> blind and using a screen reader or something designed to give 
> color information to a person who is using a screen reader.
> 
> But for a person who is colorblind -- they would generally only have
> standard visual browsers.    And figuring out which item is 
> what color based
> on color codes in the source would be beyond them.  
> 
> Now
> 1- we COULD require all color blind people to have a plug in 
> that would expose colors to them. OR 
> 2-  we COULD require authors to have something that would 
> provide a redundant non-color cue for any color encoded information.
> 
> Or we COULD rely on #1 for level 1 conformance (which would 
> mean no specific color requirements at level 1) and require 
> #2 at level 2 or level 3. 
> 
> SIDE NOTE:  #2 would be required for the information to be 
> accessible if it
> were printed or displayed on a projector.   But we are talking web
> guidelines here and not printed or displayed content.   So 
> minimum necessary
> to make the content accessible via a user agent (including 
> AT) would be #1.
> 
> 
> Anyone see holes in the above
> - or additional things to keep in mind?
> - or anything else on this?
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Gregg
> 
>  -- ------------------------------ 
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
> Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
> Director - Trace R & D Center 
> University of Wisconsin-Madison 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Marja-Riitta Koivunen
> Sent: Sunday, April 18, 2004 6:20 AM
> To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [Issue 317] Color
> 
> 
> At 12:37 AM 4/18/2004 -0500, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> 
> >I was assigned the color checkpoints to work on cleanup
> >
> >They currently read:
> >
> >LEVEL 1:  Success Criteria for Guideline 1.3
> >Any information presented through color is also available 
> without color
> (for
> >example through context or markup or coding that does not depend on 
> >color). @@issue 317?
> >Note:
> >
> >Color must be interpretable by a user agent so that the user doesn't 
> >have
> to
> >look at markup to determine meaning.
> >
> >LEVEL 2:  Success Criteria for Guideline 1.3
> >Information presented using color is also available without 
> color and 
> >without having to interpret markup (for example through 
> context or text 
> >coding). @@issue 317 [V]
> >
> >
> >
> >ISSUES
> >- it is not clear what is meant by code.  It is supposed to 
> mean that 
> >you mark the materials in a visual fashion that can be 
> viewed without 
> >needed special user agent or feature.  But coding sounds a lot like 
> >markup.
> >
> >- level 1 should allow markup as solution.  Then level 2 would go 
> >further and make it directly accessible.
> >
> >
> >POTENTIAL REWORDING
> >
> >LEVEL 1:  Success Criteria for Guideline 1.3
> >Any information presented through color is also available 
> without color
> (for
> >example through markup or context or characters or symbols that 
> >accompany the color coding) [I]
> >
> >Note:  If markup is used, markup must be interpretable by a 
> user agent 
> >so that the user doesn't have to look at markup to determine meaning.
> 
> When I read this it is so abstract that I'm not at all sure 
> what it means 
> in practise? Not even sure if we are talking about visual 
> presentation? I 
> think user agent can interpret color differences better than 
> a user who is 
> color blind.
> 
> Maybe we should talk first about classifying visual 
> information by using 
> class attributes and other means of markup so that it be 
> easily presented 
> to the user in different ways.
> 
> If color is used for the differentiation, also some other 
> visual coding is 
> needed e.g. form, texture, labelling, proximity etc.
> 
> 
> >LEVEL 2:  Success Criteria for Guideline 1.3
> >Information presented using color is also available without 
> color and 
> >without having to interpret markup (for example through context or or
> >characters or symbols that accompany the color coding).   [V]
> >
> >Not sure what the difference here is to level 1? Maybe the 
> >classification
> >and use of stylesheets should be here and plain visual 
> differentiation at 
> >level 1?
> >
> >Gregg
> >
> >------------------------
> >
> >Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
> >Director - Trace R & D Center
> >University of Wisconsin-Madison
> ><http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848
> >For a list of our listserves 
> >http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 19 April 2004 03:20:01 UTC