W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2004


From: David MacDonald <befree@magma.ca>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 16:50:40 -0400
Message-Id: <200404262050.i3QKobGc012590@mail2.magma.ca>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Hi all 

I had an action item to analyze  Guideline 1.4 and 1.5 and follow related
topics in the Gateway and Techniques Documents in order to help us better
understand the pathway through the documents that some users of the
guidelines will take.  I included in my consideration the Success criteria
and benefits sections from the guidelines and looked for possible
repetitions and gaps between documents. The "official"  template isn't
finished yet so I set up an HTML table. I have no problem with others using
this as a template.


An over view of my findings are below. 



David MacDonald 


End to End analysis of Guideline 1.4 synopsis of attached table

I find that Gateway 1.4.1 does not address Guideline 1.4. I think motion and
contrast are separate issues.  I find that Gateway Task 1.4.2 is redundant
with Guideline 1.4 and therefore unnecessary. 

Gateway 1.4.2 goes into an explanation of the reason contrast is important. 

"Many people see disabilities as absolute, people are either completely
impaired or not at all. This is not the case, the vast majority of
disabilities are partial disabilities, people having a range of ability. As
such it is important that people with a partial disability can differentiate
between content and background. In auditory content this means good sound
quality and that background noise is kept to a minimum. Visually users have
a variety of contract needs. Some users also have issues with color. See
section on color."

I suggest this paragraph needs work. First of all I think saying things like
"completely impaired" and "partial disability" is problematic. I presume it
is referring to someone who is partially sighted rather than completely
blind. I understand the intent but I don't think it works.

The CSS  2.4 technique says "use numbers, not names for colors" This is not
a direct hit on Guideline 1.5 although its title is "Color Contrast". I also
wonder why using color names is problematic. Perhaps the author was thinking
of future tools that would be able to measure RGB values but any tool like
that should be able to convert color names to their HEX values. I think we
could drop that CSS technique (2.4)

CSS techniques 2.7  addresses Guideline 1.4 but appears to me to be general
in nature and as such could be part of the Gateway rather than CSS. (only
*if*  we had seamless integration between the documents )  CSS 2.8 address
Guideline 1.4. Again it appears to start off with a technology independent
suggestion which could move to the Gateway.

End to End analysis of Guideline 1.5 synopsis of attached Table

Gateway 1.5.2 discusses text transcripts of audio. I think this belongs in
Gateway section 1.1.2 on text alternatives.   I think the purpose of the
Gateway is to provide ways to fulfill the Guidelines rather than finding
ways around them. Guideline 1.5 is about audio contrast and not alternatives
to audio.  Gateway, section 1.1.2 is about text alternatives. I think
Gateway 1.5 should be about techniques to make the foreground of an audio
track accessible to people who are hard of hearing. People who are hard of
hearing may want to be able to listen to an accessible audio track with the
foreground distinguishable from the background rather than being handcuffed
to a text transcript. So I think it would be wrong to suggest that
webmasters can fulfill Guideline 1.5 with a text transcript.



Received on Monday, 26 April 2004 16:51:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:49 UTC