Re: Contrast

William, were do you get this info from?

Dyslexia can also be looked at as a continuum in literary ability, However
when you plot a Gaussian distribution of reading skills you get a "hump"
between -2 and -3 on a normalized scale. That hump is coursed from LD. As
you are no doubt aware by now, there are things that you can do to help
people with LD access a web site. There are people (less) who have a low
reading ability because of low intelligence and normal  variation. They will
find the support given to people with LD, less helpful.

I assume that the same thing is true for color blind people. in contrast to
the gaussian distribution for "color awareness" there does seem to be a
second peck at what we call "color blind" and there may be things we can do
to help.

Lisa
-----Original Message-----
From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
To: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>; WAI <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Date: Friday, January 26, 2001 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: Contrast


>At 12:51 AM 1/26/01 +0200, Lisa Seeman wrote:
>>color blind people as a group
>
>I think this is a flawed concept. "color blind" is a "condition" along a
>continuum, much like "tone deaf".
>
>Some people are so jarred by certain color combinations that they simply
>will not (cannot?) use a site built using them. For them this is just as
>big a problem as it is for a person who *must* use that same color
>combination (contrast, whatever) to even perceive it.
>
>There is no objectifiable means of ascertaining what constitutes "good" in
>this area (contrast, color) and demanding user (through her agent) control
>is not only necessary, but also sufficient.
>
>What we tell the author to do/not is immaterial/vain/ill-advised. The
>emphasis in the guidelines must be on choice/control by/for the user. The
>"content" in this case transcends its medium and in the instant case,
>bypasses it from the author's viewpoint.
>
>My proposal is that since we cannot reliably advise authors as to the
>effectiveness/usefulness of particular display parameters that we, while
>pointing out the potential problems for certain viewers, we remain silent
>at the guideline/checkpoint level in this regard. It's like dietary laws
>-  it all depends on the eater's biochemistry, not on the chef's
instructions.
>
>--
>Love.
>                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
>
>

Received on Sunday, 28 January 2001 02:07:31 UTC