Thread Subject: Re: Color
This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.
From: Lybarger, Barbara (MOD)
Date: Wed, Aug 15 2007 8:00 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Andi Snow-Weaver: "Re: Color"
- Previous message in thread: Andrew Kirkpatrick: "Re: Color"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
On your first point, the redundancy is necessary, because folks who are
color blind have no way of perceiving the information otherwise. In
other word, although it may seem redundant to the rest of us, it isn't
redundant from a color blind person's perspective.
On your second point, this may require an above average user to
accomplish effectively. That is problematic for this population, since
color blindness is not generally supported by the government agencies
that fund AT solutions, and since color is about using an imbedded
features of IT, not a special disability feature of AT.
In both cases, the solution proposed by Gregg is simple and easy to
test. I believe it should be adopted.
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:28 PM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Color
We discussed the WCAG 2.0 provision at length and did not reach
agreement to adopt it. That's why I stuck with pretty much the original
wording. I expected that this issue would come up today in our
Since the WCAG wording is already in the harmoinization analysis table,
I have added your second alternative to the proposal 2 page.
ISO did not include this requirement that the information conveyed with
color also be conveyed visually. Why didn't they feel that it was
I wonder if this is too prescriptive. The user need is to be able to
understand the information that is being conveyed by the color. This can
be solved by a couple of strategies:
- providing the information in a redundant visual way
- providing a means for the user to customize the colors used to
something he or she can distinguish. For example, the market map at
SmartMoney.com  uses color to convey information. According to
Whitney, the user can customize the colors used.
So why do we feel the need to be so restrictive in 508 and WCAG?
Sent by: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
08/14/2007 10:31 Re: [teitac-websoftware] Color
Please respond to
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Good catch. My preference is the second of your two proposals.
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> Current TEITAC proposal is not sufficient.
> "Color must not be used as the only means of conveying information,
> indicating an action, prompting a response, or distinguishing a visual
> 1) Markup could be used to meet this requirement and is of no value to
> people who are color blind - and they are the target of this
> (The Non-text content provision and presentation provision already
> cover this for people who are blind.)
> 2) For products where AT is not used or usable, a new provision or
> subprovision would be needed.
> Suggest using WCAG language.
> *Any information that is conveyed by color differences is also
> simultaneously visually evident without the color differences. *
> Or perhaps
> "*Color must not be used as the only VISUAL means of conveying
> information, indicating an action, prompting a response, or
> distinguishing a visual element."*
> * *
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
> Director - Trace R & D Center
> University of Wisconsin-Madison
> _<http://trace.wisc.edu/>_ FAX 608/262-8848
> DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
> If Attachement is a mail.dat try http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/