- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 09:27:56 -0800
- To: "Lisa Seeman" <seeman@netvision.net.il>
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 07:01 PM 1/28/01 +0200, Lisa Seeman wrote:
>Just because something is on a continuum does not mean that it is not
>a disability
I'm not sure how I mistakenly gave the impression that I don't think
"color-blindness" is a disability. It is.
What I've tried to get across is that the solution to the accessibility
engendered by that disability, as with all other such conditions, is to
find generalizable principles for addressing solutions via
guidelines/checkpoints - not to address individual situations in our document.
The notion of being aware of problems people have with color/contrast in
Web materials is addressed by counseling authors to remain aware/alert that
presentational means associated with providing content must be "minable" by
users through their agents. The semantics must be discoverable.
We tell authors to consider *all* presentational elements without needing
to specify at certain levels of granularity any specific ones. Rather than
"attend to color/contrast" we say "attend to presentational elements"
(which of course include
color/contrast/font/volume/vocabulary/equivalents/backgrounds/captions/descriptions/+).
Presentation/style inevitably (almost) convey information and the
perseverance through transformational processes of that information is what
we must strive to ensure.
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Sunday, 28 January 2001 12:27:55 UTC