W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org > November 2016

RE: Text Color is Ready.

From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 14:19:32 +0000
To: public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DM5PR03MB2780B3D5F9E036CFD511EEED9BB10@DM5PR03MB2780.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
> If not, then I suggest the SC text is switched around to talk about not causing issues for people who do apply their own colours.

From what Wayne said it seems like that was the intent -- to allow people to pick their own colors.  Currently WCAG has a failure that says if you define either the foreground or the background color you must also define the other color.  But I'd imagine this proposed SC would go further to allow users with low vision to customize borders and backgrounds, etc. while not losing meaning, state, or focus indication.

Jonathan

Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group 
jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com
703.637.8957 (Office) 
Visit us online: Website | Twitter | Facebook | Linkedin | Blog
Join SSB at Accessing Higher Ground This Month!


-----Original Message-----
From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2016 9:15 AM
To: Jonathan Avila; public-low-vision-a11y-tf
Subject: Re: Text Color is Ready.

> In my experience the reader view doesn't work on many pages and when it does it only presents the main portion of the page.  It is helpful but doesn't go far enough to be a solution for most content.

I accept that, but regarding the proposed SC does that mean mandating colour switches on websites?

If not, then I suggest the SC text is switched around to talk about not causing issues for people who do apply their own colours.

Cheers,

-Alastair


Received on Thursday, 17 November 2016 14:20:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:23:23 UTC