- From: Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com>
- Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 19:12:56 +0200
- To: public-wcag-teamb@w3.org
Hi team B Sorry about dropping off. My house fused mid sentence. It took until now to work out the problem and get the electricity going again. The point I was makings that in many technologies outside the baseline, which are also governed by the checkpoint there are much better ways to convey concepts other then a text description of the color. For example we are working on a role taxonomy so that people can show clearly the role of different colors, say in diagram of a subway map. As such the colors are mapped to paths, with roles etc. That will enable user agents to follow paths and lines between two stations, ect. Much more useful the knowing that a given line is red, which ignores what the line represents, which stations it connects to , which are the next lines that it is connected to in a given path etc. Text equivalents is a a starting point accessibility, but success criteria should not produces richer options such as concept equivalents and mappings. I vote no to Greg's proposal All the best Lisa
Received on Wednesday, 4 January 2006 17:37:43 UTC