RE: Research into 1.3.2

Yes

What was determined was that if the text was colored- it was impossible for
it to not be "programmatically determined".  If it was in a diagram
(graphic) then the short or long description would cover any important
information conveyed by the graphic including color. 

 

The group stopped short of requiring text character encoding of color
information at level 1.  

 


Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
The Player for my DSS sound file is at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
<http://tinyurl.com/cmfd9>  

 

 


  _____  


From: public-wcag-teamc-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-wcag-teamc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Becky Gibson
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 4:49 PM
To: public-wcag-teamc@w3.org
Subject: Research into 1.3.2


I went back through the team b minutes and the working group minutes and
surveys to find the history of changes to the color related success criteria
in guideline 1.3.  I'm not sure it helps to answer the question that Bruce
was asking in our survey for issue 558 [1] (why is a text alternative for
color  not required - is making it bold sufficient?).   

In January  Gregg made proposal for 1.3.2 and 1.3.4: [2] 
<proposal> 
1.3.2  When information is conveyed by color, the color can be
programmatically determined or the information is also conveyed through
text. [How to meet 1.3.2]

At level 2 we have

1.3.4  Any information that is conveyed by color is visually evident
when color is not available. [How to meet 1.3.4]


This avoids the problem of using a visual means to satisfy both L1 and
L2 resulting in no way for people who are blind to be able to access the
information.   
</proposal> 

These proposals were surveyed [3] I can't find in the minutes where this was
discussed or resolved.  At the at February  2 meeting 1.3.4 (with the
working Gregg proposed) was moved to level 1: 
resolution: 1842A accept proposal to move 1.3.4, "Any information that is
conveyed by color is visually evident when color is not available" to L1 
... 1.3.2 is referred back to committee to determine whether it is still
required. 
.. 
Then what was 1.3.2 and 1.3.4 were combined into what is now 1.3.2 at the
March 16 meeting [4] .   

Proposed wording for SC 1.3.2:   

Because SC 1.3.4 has been promoted to Level 1, and because the wording of SC
1.3.1 has been changed, Team B believes that SC 1.3.2 and SC 1.3.4 should be
combined: 

1.3.2 Any information that is conveyed by color is visually evident without
color. 
Team B feels that SC 1.3.1 now covers making information conveyed by color
programmatically determinable, and that making only the color
programmatically determinable does not solve any accessibility problems with
the current user agents. 

So, it seems that the working group felt that  there are other means to make
something "visually evident without color" in addition to text.  And, if I
infer correctly, making something bold is ok as long as bold can be
programmatically determined.  Note that both of the sufficient techniques
for 1.3.2 use text to help clarify the color. So, we probably need to
clarify this with a sufficient technique that uses a means other than text
to make the "information that is conveyed by color is visually evident
without color."   

thoughts? 


[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/teamcjune12006/results 
[2] [2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag-teamb/2006Jan/0019.html 
[3] [3] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/SC1323wording/results 
[4] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/20060316TeamB/results   

Becky Gibson
Web Accessibility Architect
                                                      
IBM Emerging Internet Technologies
5 Technology Park Drive
Westford, MA 01886
Voice: 978 399-6101; t/l 333-6101
Email:  <mailto:gibsonb@us.ibm.com> gibsonb@us.ibm.com