Today's Audio-Conference (9/11/03)

To The Group:

It seems as though there are many differences of opinion about the "overall"
layout and design of the current and the "recently proposed" WCAG 2.0
Guidelines.  Based upon conversations or a lack thereof, it's probably NOT
even possible to tell how many "camps" there may be lingering in the quiet
corners somewhere. 

My ideas/concerns follow:

1.  It really is my strong opinion that organizations and governments are
going to want a "down and dirty" - tell me what I need to do type document.
It needs to be easy to distinguish the set-out guideline's required "stuff"
from everything else.  It needs to be easy to read and listen to.

1a.  If developers do not understand a given "core" checkpoint, there needs
to be a way to point them to possibly the Gateway Techniques, Benefits, etc.
Some developers (in our effort to keep the language related to checkpoints,
what-have-you a bit more technical) may not "easily understand what we're
asking/requiring they do.

1b.  I realize that 1a. above may actually give reason to have the Success
Criteria, Best Practices, etc. in the same view but I think that's too much
information and possibly confusing.

2.  I am of the belief that the "full" document needs to be made available
as the first document a user would come to (realizing a person may navigate
into the middle by some means or another).  There was mention made of some
pending (possible) legal issues were the entire document NOT presented
fully.  My understanding for those who have advocated for "breaking-up" some
of the material is that be done do accommodate individual need and still
retain the integrity of "whatever" we come up with in the end.

3.  The WCAG 2.0 draft document, as it presently exists, could be made
easier to understand or navigate through.  Anything we can do to make our
work better serve individuals who will use it has got to be a step in the
right direction.  Seems like there were some good ideas thrown around today
and I am not so sure that we actually are not closer than we think we are.

4.  Color blindness - geeeez!  I wanted to speak-up on this issue and of
course did not.  I've been told I have a mixture of red/green and
yellow/blue color deficiencies (this is extremely rare).

Three things that are paramount in regard to color and the ability to
distinguish background from foreground are - hue, saturation and brightness.
Using a grey-scale as a means of checking is far better than nothing.  Using
a real subject who has one of the three types of color deficiencies is the
best (but likely not practical).

I do not believe that there is a steadfast solution for color related issues
- none as they pertain to web accessibility.  A good example of color
problems can be found on the document we looked at today on our conference
call - http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2003/09/06-reorg-proposal-edits-visible.html

At the top of the "doc" there were colors that marked beginning and ending
changes.  I thought they were two different colors but was not sure - they
looked oddly the same but somehow different.  Further down the document the
two colors were at some point separated by white in between - this made it
easy (easier) to see the color differences.  Not at all scientific but I
believe the white color around the two different colors added brightness to
the individual colors and I was more easily able to see the color
differences.  Together, these two colors looked a yellowish green and the
same.  The saturation of the two colors seemed to also be very close as did
the actual colors. 

I had read with interest the "threads" on this issue and because there were
so many varying opinions, I did not jump into the quagmire.  The reason for
the many opinions is easy to factor...there is NO clear answer when it comes
to what I prefer to call color deficiencies.

Just my thoughts!

Doyle


Doyle Burnett
Education and Training Specialist
Multiple Disabilities Program
Special Education Service Agency
dburnett@sesa.org
Www.sesa.org
--

Received on Thursday, 11 September 2003 19:15:05 UTC