Use of Color -- WCAG1 checkpoint 2.1

At 06:30 AM 2/5/2001 , Lubow Scott wrote:
>The home page of this site is not accessible.  According to checkpoint
>2.1 Ensure that all information conveyed with color is also available
>without color, for example from context or markup [Priority  1], the
>phrase in the middle of the page "Note the menu option in RED on the
>left hand side of your screen. This button will take you to AbilityNet's
>Chat Room, Message Board, Guest-book and our NEW Mailing List service."
>This is a priority 1 and makes this site non-accessible.

Actually, I don't believe it necessarily makes the site non-accessible
(to whom? everyone?) but I do think that it makes the site confusing
as it's harder to locate the menu option.  It's okay to _use_ red as
part of a design.

The problem here is actually with the _phrase_.  This particular
phrase uses the two terms "RED" and "left hand side".  If that phrase
did not _exist_, would this specific accessibility problem exist?

Assuming (which may not be the case) that the red button on the left
hand side can be _identified_ in some way as the "menu option", then,
no, this is _not_ a priority 1 violation.  The information is
available in more than simply color.

It may be harder to find because of the _phrasing_, which is
confusing, but "harder to find but not an absolute barrier to
access" is a priority 2 violation, by definition.  Confusing
phrasing -- language which is dependent upon a specific presentation
but which does not absolutely prevent someone from getting at
the content -- is not covered by WCAG checkpoint 2.1.

In fact, it's not covered by any WCAG checkpoint, to the best of
my knowledge.  If it were, it would be a P2 according to WCAG 1.0
priority definitions.

--Kynn

Kynn Bartlett
Sr. Engineering Product Leader
Team Edapta
Reef North America
Tel +1 909-674-5225
___________________________________
BUSINESS IS DYNAMIC. TAKE CONTROL.
___________________________________
http://www.reef.com

Received on Monday, 5 February 2001 12:24:22 UTC