Thread Subject: Color
Note
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.
Return to this mailing list's archives
From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, Aug 14 2007 9:25 AM
Subject: Color
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
element."
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 provision.
(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
------------------------
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/> 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/>
http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
<http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
From: Peter Korn
Date: Tue, Aug 14 2007 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: Color
Hi Gregg,
Good catch. My preference is the second of your two proposals.
Regards,
Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> Current TEITAC proposal is not sufficient.
>
> âColor must not be used as the only means of conveying information,
> indicating an action, prompting a response, or distinguishing a visual
> element.â
>
> 1) Markup could be used to meet this requirement and is of no value to
> people who are color blind â and they are the target of this provision.
>
> (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
>
> â*Color must not be used as the only VISUAL means of conveying
> information, indicating an action, prompting a response, or
> distinguishing a visual element.â*
>
> * *
>
>
> Gregg
>
> ------------------------
>
> 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/
>
> <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>__
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
From: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Tue, Aug 14 2007 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: Color
Gregg,
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 discussion.
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
important?
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
[1] 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?
[1] http://tinyurl.com/2uekpr
Andi
Peter Korn
<Peter.Korn@Sun.C
OM> To
Sent by: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
teitac-websoftwar < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
itac.org cc
Subject
08/14/2007 10:31 Re: [teitac-websoftware] Color
AM
Please respond to
TEITAC
Web/Software
Subcommittee
<teitac-websoftwa
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
g>
Hi Gregg,
Good catch. My preference is the second of your two proposals.
Regards,
Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> Current TEITAC proposal is not sufficient.
>
> âColor must not be used as the only means of conveying information,
> indicating an action, prompting a response, or distinguishing a visual
> element.â
>
> 1) Markup could be used to meet this requirement and is of no value to
> people who are color blind â and they are the target of this provision.
>
> (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
>
> â*Color must not be used as the only VISUAL means of conveying
> information, indicating an action, prompting a response, or
> distinguishing a visual element.â*
>
> * *
>
>
> Gregg
>
> ------------------------
>
> 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/
>
> <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>__
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
_______________________________________________
teitac-websoftware mailing list
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://list.teitac.org/mailman/listinfo/teitac-websoftware
From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, Aug 14 2007 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: Color
It was a typo / misso in ISO and ANSI.
Everyone knew what it meant and no one noticed the loophole. It was when
people started adding "including markup" that it jumped out at us. But too
late.
RE your suggestions: BOTH would be possible with the suggested wording I
sent.
But with our current proposed TEITAC wording - you could also have it just
be programmatically determinable which would not help anyone. (that is
already required by other provisions for people who are blind - and it does
not address the problem for people who are color blind)
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Andi Snow-Weaver
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 11:28 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Color
>
> Gregg,
>
> 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 discussion.
>
> 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 important?
>
> 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 [1] 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?
>
> [1] http://tinyurl.com/2uekpr
>
> Andi
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter Korn
>
> <Peter.Korn@Sun.C
>
> OM>
> To
> Sent by: TEITAC Web/Software
> Subcommittee
> teitac-websoftwar
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
> itac.org
> cc
>
>
>
> Subject
> 08/14/2007 10:31 Re:
> [teitac-websoftware] Color
> AM
>
>
>
>
>
> Please respond to
>
> TEITAC
>
> Web/Software
>
> Subcommittee
>
> <teitac-websoftwa
>
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> g>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Gregg,
>
> Good catch. My preference is the second of your two proposals.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Korn
> Accessibility Architect,
> 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
> > element."
> >
> > 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 provision.
> >
> > (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
> >
> > ------------------------
> >
> > 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/
> >
> > <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>__
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> >
> >
From: Jared Smith
Date: Tue, Aug 14 2007 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: Color
On 8/14/07, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> Current TEITAC proposal is not sufficient.
>
> Suggest using WCAG language.
>
> "Color must not be used as the only VISUAL means of conveying information,
> indicating an action, prompting a response, or distinguishing a visual
> element."
I agree with this change - this very much clarifies that this is
addressing *visual* color issues. As you mention, we do need
additional clarification that information conveyed with color alone
can also be made accessible to screen reader users. By adding a color
example under the Information and Relationships provision
("Information and relationships conveyed through presentation can be
programmatically determined or are available in text") or by
clarifying that 'presentation' includes the use of color, this would
be adequately addressed.
Jared Smith
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Tue, Aug 14 2007 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: Color
I'll vote for the latter also. More similar to existing language in 508
is better in this case.
AWK
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Peter Korn
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 11:32 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Color
>
> Hi Gregg,
>
> Good catch. My preference is the second of your two proposals.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Korn
> Accessibility Architect,
> 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
> > element."
> >
> > 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 provision.
> >
> > (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
> >
> > ------------------------
> >
> > 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/
> >
> > <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>__
> >
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> >
> >
From: Lybarger, Barbara (MOD)
Date: Wed, Aug 15 2007 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: Color
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.
Barbara
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi
Snow-Weaver
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:28 PM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Color
Gregg,
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
discussion.
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
important?
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 [1] 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?
[1] http://tinyurl.com/2uekpr
Andi
Peter Korn
<Peter.Korn@Sun.C
OM>
To
Sent by: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
teitac-websoftwar
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
itac.org
cc
Subject
08/14/2007 10:31 Re: [teitac-websoftware] Color
AM
Please respond to
TEITAC
Web/Software
Subcommittee
<teitac-websoftwa
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
g>
Hi Gregg,
Good catch. My preference is the second of your two proposals.
Regards,
Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
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
> element."
>
> 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
provision.
>
> (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
>
> ------------------------
>
> 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/
>
> <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>__
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
>
From: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Wed, Aug 15 2007 8:15 AM
Subject: Re: Color
Barbara,
It was agreed to adopt Gregg's proposal at yesterday's meeting.
Andi
"Lybarger,
Barbara (MOD)"
<Barbara.Lybarger To
@state.ma.us> "TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee"
Sent by: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
teitac-websoftwar >
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = cc
itac.org
Subject
Re: [teitac-websoftware] Color
08/15/2007 08:58
AM
Please respond to
TEITAC
Web/Software
Subcommittee
<teitac-websoftwa
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
g>
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.
Barbara
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi
Snow-Weaver
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:28 PM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Color
Gregg,
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
discussion.
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
important?
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 [1] 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?
[1] http://tinyurl.com/2uekpr
Andi
Peter Korn
<Peter.Korn@Sun.C
OM>
To
Sent by: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
teitac-websoftwar
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
itac.org
cc
Subject
08/14/2007 10:31 Re: [teitac-websoftware] Color
AM
Please respond to
TEITAC
Web/Software
Subcommittee
<teitac-websoftwa
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
g>
Hi Gregg,
Good catch. My preference is the second of your two proposals.
Regards,
Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
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
> element."
>
> 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
provision.
>
> (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
>
> ------------------------
>
> 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/
>
> <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>__
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
>
From: Lybarger, Barbara (MOD)
Date: Wed, Aug 15 2007 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: Color
That's great. Thanks for letting me know.
Barbara
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi
Snow-Weaver
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2007 10:12 AM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Color
Barbara,
It was agreed to adopt Gregg's proposal at yesterday's meeting.
Andi
"Lybarger,
Barbara (MOD)"
<Barbara.Lybarger
To
@state.ma.us> "TEITAC Web/Software
Subcommittee"
Sent by:
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
teitac-websoftwar >
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
cc
itac.org
Subject
Re: [teitac-websoftware] Color
08/15/2007 08:58
AM
Please respond to
TEITAC
Web/Software
Subcommittee
<teitac-websoftwa
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
g>
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.
Barbara
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi
Snow-Weaver
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:28 PM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Color
Gregg,
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
discussion.
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
important?
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 [1] 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?
[1] http://tinyurl.com/2uekpr
Andi
Peter Korn
<Peter.Korn@Sun.C
OM>
To
Sent by: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
teitac-websoftwar
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
itac.org
cc
Subject
08/14/2007 10:31 Re: [teitac-websoftware] Color
AM
Please respond to
TEITAC
Web/Software
Subcommittee
<teitac-websoftwa
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
g>
Hi Gregg,
Good catch. My preference is the second of your two proposals.
Regards,
Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
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
> element."
>
> 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
provision.
>
> (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
>
> ------------------------
>
> 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/
>
> <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>__
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
>
From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sat, Aug 18 2007 11:25 PM
Subject: Color
Was looking to harmonize WCAG with TEITAC but I think new WCAG proposal
might be better
WCAG proposal
Any information <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#informationbycolordef>
that is conveyed by difference in color is also simultaneously visually
evident without the color difference.
TEITAC language
Color must not be used as the only visual means of conveying information,
indicating an action, prompting a response, or distinguishing a visual
element.
Disadvantages of TEITAC
1) longer
2) uses list of things (which is always dangerous in provision --
though useful in a note)
3) If I use blue text to convey information - it should not trigger
this (if the blue has no meaning). However this language in past WCAGs has
caused people to believe that they could not convey information in color
(rather than by color).
Gregg
------------------------
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/> 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/>
http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
<http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Sun, Aug 19 2007 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: Color
I'd be happy with:
Color must not be used as the only visual means of conveying information.
I think that this covers the list, is shorter than wcag, and doesn't have the heavy "simultaneously visually
evident" phrase that is unnecessarily complex.
Awk
---
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Adobe Systems
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
617.219.2209
-----Original Message-----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 06:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Color
Was looking to harmonize WCAG with TEITAC but I think new WCAG proposal
might be better
WCAG proposal
Any information <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#informationbycolordef>
that is conveyed by difference in color is also simultaneously visually
evident without the color difference.
TEITAC language
Color must not be used as the only visual means of conveying information,
indicating an action, prompting a response, or distinguishing a visual
element.
Disadvantages of TEITAC
1) longer
2) uses list of things (which is always dangerous in provision --
though useful in a note)
3) If I use blue text to convey information - it should not trigger
this (if the blue has no meaning). However this language in past WCAGs has
caused people to believe that they could not convey information in color
(rather than by color).
Gregg
------------------------
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/> 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/>
http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
<http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sun, Aug 19 2007 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: Color
When we had language like this - it kept being interpreted by people as
meaning that you couldn't present information using colored text.
We also had comments in WCAG - that's what led us to 'color differences' or
"differences in color".
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 1:42 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Color
>
> I'd be happy with:
> Color must not be used as the only visual means of conveying
> information.
>
> I think that this covers the list, is shorter than wcag, and
> doesn't have the heavy "simultaneously visually evident"
> phrase that is unnecessarily complex.
>
> Awk
>
>
> ---
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>
> Adobe Systems
>
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> 617.219.2209
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 06:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Color
>
> Was looking to harmonize WCAG with TEITAC but I think new
> WCAG proposal might be better
>
>
>
>
>
>
> WCAG proposal
>
>
> Any information
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#informationbycolordef>
> that is conveyed by difference in color is also
> simultaneously visually evident without the color difference.
>
>
>
>
> TEITAC language
>
>
> Color must not be used as the only visual means of conveying
> information, indicating an action, prompting a response, or
> distinguishing a visual element.
>
>
>
> Disadvantages of TEITAC
>
> 1) longer
>
> 2) uses list of things (which is always dangerous in
> provision --
> though useful in a note)
>
> 3) If I use blue text to convey information - it should
> not trigger
> this (if the blue has no meaning). However this language in
> past WCAGs has caused people to believe that they could not
> convey information in color (rather than by color).
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
>
> ------------------------
>
> 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/> 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/> http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
>
> <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Mon, Aug 20 2007 6:35 AM
Subject: Re: Color
I don't believe that the WCAG language will make educating folks on what
this requirement means easier, and would suspect it would make this more
difficult. harmonizing is great when we both end up with better
language--but in reality WCAG nor 508 have different objectives for the
provision, so lets aim for the less complicated language. "color
differences" really complicates this to me as a reader and in theory I
know what we are after.
Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 4:29 PM
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Color
When we had language like this - it kept being interpreted by people as
meaning that you couldn't present information using colored text.
We also had comments in WCAG - that's what led us to 'color differences'
or "differences in color".
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 1:42 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Color
>
> I'd be happy with:
> Color must not be used as the only visual means of conveying
> information.
>
> I think that this covers the list, is shorter than wcag, and doesn't
> have the heavy "simultaneously visually evident"
> phrase that is unnecessarily complex.
>
> Awk
>
>
> ---
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
>
> Adobe Systems
>
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> 617.219.2209
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 06:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Color
>
> Was looking to harmonize WCAG with TEITAC but I think new WCAG
> proposal might be better
>
>
>
>
>
>
> WCAG proposal
>
>
> Any information
> <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#informationbycolordef>
> that is conveyed by difference in color is also simultaneously
> visually evident without the color difference.
>
>
>
>
> TEITAC language
>
>
> Color must not be used as the only visual means of conveying
> information, indicating an action, prompting a response, or
> distinguishing a visual element.
>
>
>
> Disadvantages of TEITAC
>
> 1) longer
>
> 2) uses list of things (which is always dangerous in
> provision --
> though useful in a note)
>
> 3) If I use blue text to convey information - it should
> not trigger
> this (if the blue has no meaning). However this language in past
> WCAGs has caused people to believe that they could not convey
> information in color (rather than by color).
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
>
> ------------------------
>
> 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/> 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/> http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
>
> <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
From: Lybarger, Barbara (MOD)
Date: Mon, Aug 20 2007 7:00 AM
Subject: Re: Color
In the interest of understandability for the mere mortals among us,
Andrews version is much clearer. I would suggest that the WCAG version
adds unnecessary complexity and will result in more folks
misunderstanding what the provision is intended to do.
How about using Andrews version and suggesting that the Board include
further elaboration in subregulatory guidance?
Barbara E. Lybarger, General Counsel
Massachusetts Office on Disability
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andrew
Kirkpatrick
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 2:42 PM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Color
I'd be happy with:
Color must not be used as the only visual means of conveying
information.
I think that this covers the list, is shorter than wcag, and doesn't
have the heavy "simultaneously visually evident" phrase that is
unnecessarily complex.
Awk
---
Andrew Kirkpatrick
Adobe Systems
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
617.219.2209
-----Original Message-----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 06:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Color
Was looking to harmonize WCAG with TEITAC but I think new WCAG proposal
might be better
WCAG proposal
Any information <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#informationbycolordef>
that is conveyed by difference in color is also simultaneously visually
evident without the color difference.
TEITAC language
Color must not be used as the only visual means of conveying
information, indicating an action, prompting a response, or
distinguishing a visual element.
Disadvantages of TEITAC
1) longer
2) uses list of things (which is always dangerous in provision --
though useful in a note)
3) If I use blue text to convey information - it should not
trigger
this (if the blue has no meaning). However this language in past WCAGs
has caused people to believe that they could not convey information in
color (rather than by color).
Gregg
------------------------
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/> 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/>
http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
<http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
From: Sailesh Panchang
Date: Mon, Aug 20 2007 7:15 AM
Subject: Re: Color
"Difference in color" between parts of content is the key. So I vote for
the WCAG2 statement and Greg's reasoning if I may.
That statement precisely conveys the evaluation criterion.
In the WCAG2 statement I suggest a small editorial change:
Instead of "simultaneously visually evident", I feel "simultaneously
evident visually" reads better without loss of meaning.
Sailesh Panchang
Senior Accessibility Engineer
Deque Systems Inc. (www.deque.com)
11130 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite #140,
Reston VA 20191
Phone: 703-225-0380 (ext 105)
E-mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
From: Katie Haritos-Shea
Date: Mon, Aug 20 2007 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: Color
I prefer the complete WCAG information.
Katie HS
-----Original Message-----
>From: Andrew Kirkpatrick < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Sent: Aug 19, 2007 2:42 PM
>To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Color
>
>I'd be happy with:
>Color must not be used as the only visual means of conveying information.
>
>I think that this covers the list, is shorter than wcag, and doesn't have the heavy "simultaneously visually
>evident" phrase that is unnecessarily complex.
>
>Awk
>
>
>---
>Andrew Kirkpatrick
>
>Adobe Systems
>
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
>617.219.2209
>
> -----Original Message-----
>From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2007 06:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
>To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
>Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Color
>
>Was looking to harmonize WCAG with TEITAC but I think new WCAG proposal
>might be better
>
>
>
>
>
>
>WCAG proposal
>
>
>Any information <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#informationbycolordef>
>that is conveyed by difference in color is also simultaneously visually
>evident without the color difference.
>
>
>
>
>TEITAC language
>
>
>Color must not be used as the only visual means of conveying information,
>indicating an action, prompting a response, or distinguishing a visual
>element.
>
>
>
>Disadvantages of TEITAC
>
>1) longer
>
>2) uses list of things (which is always dangerous in provision --
>though useful in a note)
>
>3) If I use blue text to convey information - it should not trigger
>this (if the blue has no meaning). However this language in past WCAGs has
>caused people to believe that they could not convey information in color
>(rather than by color).
>
>
>
>
>Gregg
>
>------------------------
>
>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/> 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/>
>http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
>
> <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
>
>
>
>
>
>
From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, Aug 21 2007 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: Color
Good edit Sailesh
I will take it back to WCAG.
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Sailesh
Panchang
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 8:17 AM
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Color
"Difference in color" between parts of content is the key. So I vote for
the WCAG2 statement and Greg's reasoning if I may.
That statement precisely conveys the evaluation criterion.
In the WCAG2 statement I suggest a small editorial change:
Instead of "simultaneously visually evident", I feel "simultaneously
evident visually" reads better without loss of meaning.
Sailesh Panchang
Senior Accessibility Engineer
Deque Systems Inc. (www.deque.com)
11130 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite #140,
Reston VA 20191
Phone: 703-225-0380 (ext 105)
E-mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
WebAIM is an initiative of:
