- From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 09:09:01 +0200
- To: John Foliot <jfoliot@stanford.edu>
- CC: public-media-annotation@w3.org
John, Please keep in mind that the coloring is only meant for tracking the status of advancement of the files: errors validation. In a few days or couple weeks all this coloring will be removed in the final Testsuite as files will all be error free. To clarify, we are not using "red / green / yellow" coloring of text, we are using a CSS class for each type of files, and then define a screen layout for each class. <td><span class="invalid"><span class="valid"> ... <td><span class="invalid"><span class="invalid"> ... An aural CSS style sheet could highlight these files category for people with visual impairments. I agree that for a document meant for the public wide consumption, your markup [V] / [NV] / [CV] would me more appropriate. I can guaranty that this document, when finalized will not incorporate these colorings in the final testsuite. Thierry Le 17/06/2011 17:17, John Foliot a écrit : > 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 Monday, 20 June 2011 07:09:24 UTC