- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 06:48:42 -0800
- To: Dick Brown <dickb@microsoft.com>, "'w3c-wai-gl@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010128063325.02a6d9e0@mail.gorge.net>
At 02:49 PM 1/25/01 -0800, Dick Brown wrote:
>I do not think we should *recommend* color schemes
The other side of this coin is whether we should, even in techniques,
specify proscribed colors but rather point to a collection of references of
the kind sited by Dick herein. As a technique it's likely that inclusion of
"consider color" is apt but details of that get into things that involve
i18n ("penguins hate purple" - never put red on a site that mentions the
God of Hope, etc.).
In the sense of "using color" we are addressing (i.e. color *not* as
"color") in checkpoints it is entirely a matter of presentation and rules
for its use therein are like the rules for the use of any other
presentational factor. In this context it is no different than the "rules"
for which fonts (their genera and size) are to be used for presentational
purposes.
We are concerned with the semantics of color use, if any. E.g. it is a
frequent admonishment in email to advise not to use all caps - "why are you
SHOUTING AT US?" - but it's possible that the miscreant has a computer that
only displays caps! In the case of color certain "bad taste" factors are so
built-in that they seem "intuitively obvious" - they're not.
To belabor the point I've appended a .wav file which is not viral, but you
need not listen to it.
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Attachments
- application/octet-stream attachment: repurpose.wav
Received on Sunday, 28 January 2001 09:48:46 UTC