Thread Subject: Color Provision - Harmonizing with WCAG

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Andrew LaHart
Date: Wed, Jun 20 2007 7:35 AM
Subject: Color Provision - Harmonizing with WCAG

We never came to an agreement last week to harmonize the 1194.22(c) Color
provision with WCAG 2. For a detailed recap of the 1194.22(c) discussion,
please see the notes from last weeks meeting
(http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_June_13).

Our current wording of the Color provision from the May Plenary Meeting
Draft says: "Web pages shall be designed so that all information conveyed
with color is also available without color, for example from context or
markup. "

The WCAG 2 May 17 Working Draft says "Any information that is conveyed by
color differences is also simultaneously visually evident without the
color differences."

During the discussion, harmonizing with ISO was also suggested as an
option. ISO says "Software shall not use colour alone as the only way to
convey information or indicate an action."

On the call last week, the following comment was made:
Question on the difference between "color" and "color differences"? Color
differences came up due to confusion with the page printing with blue
text. Conveying information with color in text makes no difference if your
not conveying information using color. This term was used because people
were concerned with using colored text.

I agree with this comment and I would still recommend we harmonize with
WCAG. I think the term "color differences" is clear and understandable.
However, it needs more discussion. Thoughts?

Thanks,
Drew

Andrew LaHart
IBM Human Ability and Accessibility Center
w3.ibm.com/able

From: Smith, Jamie
Date: Wed, Jun 20 2007 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: Color Provision - Harmonizing with WCAG

I'm thankful for all the work in getting a standard for color provision.

It would be nice if harmonization could happen.

I like the May Plenary Meeting Draft and the ISO. Didn't really care
for the May 17th that said "visually evident".

I've shown this to a few application folks and they didn't seem to have
a problem with the term "color differences" or "difference between
color".

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Jun 20 2007 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: Color Provision - Harmonizing with WCAG

Hi Jamie



Visually evident was added because it is always possible to ask the computer
what color is displayed at any point on the screen or for any letter. Hence
- it is always possible to tell what color it is by having software
(including a screen reader) tell you what color a word is. But that
doesn't help people who are colorblind. There needed to be some VISUAL way
of conveying the information besides color. (There is another provision
that requires that any information presented using color be available to
people using screen readers).



Does that help?




Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Smith,
Jamie
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 10:22 AM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Color Provision - Harmonizing with WCAG

I'm thankful for all the work in getting a standard for color provision.



It would be nice if harmonization could happen.



I like the May Plenary Meeting Draft and the ISO. Didn't really care for
the May 17th that said "visually evident".



I've shown this to a few application folks and they didn't seem to have a
problem with the term "color differences" or "difference between color".




_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andrew
LaHart
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 9:30 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Color Provision - Harmonizing with WCAG


We never came to an agreement last week to harmonize the 1194.22(c) Color
provision with WCAG 2. For a detailed recap of the 1194.22(c) discussion,
please see the notes from last weeks meeting
(http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_June_13).

Our current wording of the Color provision from the May Plenary Meeting
Draft says: "Web pages shall be designed so that all information conveyed
with color is also available without color, for example from context or
markup. "

The WCAG 2 May 17 Working Draft says "Any information that is conveyed by
color differences is also simultaneously visually evident without the color
differences."

During the discussion, harmonizing with ISO was also suggested as an option.
ISO says "Software shall not use colour alone as the only way to convey
information or indicate an action."

On the call last week, the following comment was made:

* Question on the difference between "color" and "color differences"?
Color differences came up due to confusion with the page printing with blue
text. Conveying information with color in text makes no difference if your
not conveying information using color. This term was used because people
were concerned with using colored text.


I agree with this comment and I would still recommend we harmonize with
WCAG. I think the term "color differences" is clear and understandable.
However, it needs more discussion. Thoughts?

Thanks,
Drew

Andrew LaHart
IBM Human Ability and Accessibility Center
w3.ibm.com/able





Please take a few minutes to provide feedback on the quality of service you
received. The Department of Education values your feedback as a customer.
Commissioner Jeanine Blomberg is committed to continuously assessing and
improving the level and quality of services provided to you by Department
staff. Simply click on this link to the "DOE Customer Survey". Thank you in
advance for completing the survey.

DOE
<http://data.fldoe.org/cs/default.cfm?staff= = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = |11:22:
01%20Wed%2020%20Jun%202007> Customer Survey

From: Smith, Jamie
Date: Wed, Jun 20 2007 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: Color Provision - Harmonizing with WCAG

I am aware that speech might allow one to read color at some point, but
most of the speech user I know do not do such. It seems like content
people could just be better writers. ... if only.