- 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>
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