- 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