Re: [css-d] CSS color names values versus accessibility
On 30/03/07, Jukka K. Korpela [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you use the shortcuts _only_, you are limiting yourself to 256 colors, which often isn't very restrictive but doesn't mean actual benefits either. Actually 16×16×16 = 4096 colours are possible. Cheers, jens -- Jens Brueckmann http://www.yalf.de __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] CSS color names values versus accessibility
Chris Ovenden wrote: Interesting issue, and one I haven't given much thought to before. For what it's worth I only use the colour keywords 'black' and 'white' (no argument about what these mean!) But what about the three-digit hex contractions - ie #363 instead of #336633? I love other CSS shortcuts, but for some reason this one really irks me I know what you mean, but at the end of the day I simply prefer 6-digit hex codes - for the sake of uniformity. There is, in terms of rendering, no ambiguity with shorthand hex, rgb values or 16/256-colour codewords - but I like to operate off a single system of comparable values. Hex is slightly less human-readable than rgb, but makes up for it in always taking up only the same 7 character spaces (yes, I am that bloody-minded). It makes things easier to compare, and I know where to look in my graphics software. As you say, 'black' and 'white' can't really be faulted. In fact I do feel a little stupid writing out #00 and #ff, but at the end of the day it's just a little eccentricity I feel better for humouring. Regards, Barney __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] CSS color names values versus accessibility
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Chris Ovenden wrote: Interesting issue, and one I haven't given much thought to before. For what it's worth I only use the colour keywords 'black' and 'white' (no argument about what these mean!) I do pretty much the same, though in tests and examples, 'red', 'yellow' and other names are convenient. They are a bit problematic in examples, of course. The names 'black' and 'white' are easy to remember, but actually '#000' and '#fff' are faster to type. Less self-explanatory, of course, but CSS isn't really meant to be read by people who don't know the idea of color codes. But what about the three-digit hex contractions - ie #363 instead of #336633? I love other CSS shortcuts, but for some reason this one really irks me There is no difference (at least significant difference) in browser support, and the effect is of course exactly the same. There's the _psychological_ factor (as with the color names) that if you use the shortcuts (or names), you might be tempted to use only colors expressible with them. But this is neither a drawback nor a significant benefit with the shortcuts (though it might matter with the color names). If you use the shortcuts _only_, you are limiting yourself to 256 colors, which often isn't very restrictive but doesn't mean actual benefits either. The few devices that work with 256 colors (very old, misconfigured, or new special devices) will map other colors them, of course, instead of not understanding the long notation. -- Jukka Yucca Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] CSS color names values versus accessibility
The more convincing answer for my question (http://archivist.incutio.com/viewlist/css-discuss/86680) I've got on a WAI list. David White said: ...The point about using numbers (I.e. Hex values) instead of names is purely so that there can be no misunderstanding when parsing on the client browser. Some browsers render grey (for example) differently but if you use Hex there can be no ambiguity. ... and I say: It makes sense cause sometimes a slightly color difference crashes the threshold for contrast. Maurício Samy Silva http://www.maujor.com/ - Original Message - From: Chris Ovenden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jukka K. Korpela [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:43 AM Subject: Re: [css-d] CSS color names values versus accessibility Interesting issue, and one I haven't given much thought to before. For what it's worth I only use the colour keywords 'black' and 'white' (no argument about what these mean!) But what about the three-digit hex contractions - ie #363 instead of #336633? I love other CSS shortcuts, but for some reason this one really irks me -- Chris Ovenden http://thepeer.blogspot.com Imagine all the people / Sharing all the world __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] CSS color names values versus accessibility
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Mauricio Samy Silva wrote: David White said: ...The point about using numbers (I.e. Hex values) instead of names is purely so that there can be no misunderstanding when parsing on the client browser. Some browsers render grey (for example) differently but if you use Hex there can be no ambiguity. ... There is no color name grey in CSS specifications, so the argument is relevant to nonstandard color names only, and they were not under discussion. They are of course to be avoided on the same ground as any other nonstandard constructs (including color codes without # - they too work on some browsers and make the declaration ignored on other, conforming browsers). It makes sense cause sometimes a slightly color difference crashes the threshold for contrast. I don't see how this could be a matter of a slight difference. The name grey is incorrectly recognized as a synonym for gray on some browsers, correctly treated as malformed on some. If there are browsers that accept it and treat it as denoting something _almost_ identitical to gray, then I'd be delighted to hear about such a monstrosity, but this has nothing to with the difference between gray and #808080, which is no difference. By the way, if your contrast is so near to the threshold (as defined by the W3C or some other party) that a _slight_ change makes you cross it, then you were already too near. Crossing the threshold has an extremely small impact in such a situation on real accessibility, even if it may change some technical status by some _measure_ of accessibility. -- Jukka Yucca Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] CSS color names values versus accessibility
Mauricio Samy Silva wrote: The more convincing answer for my question (http://archivist.incutio.com/viewlist/css-discuss/86680) I've got on a WAI list. David White said: ...The point about using numbers (I.e. Hex values) instead of names is purely so that there can be no misunderstanding when parsing on the client browser. Some browsers render grey (for example) differently but if you use Hex there can be no ambiguity. ... and I say: It makes sense cause sometimes a slightly color difference crashes the threshold for contrast. Maurício Samy Silva http://www.maujor.com/ Mauricio, have you seen any evidence? This seems like FUD to me. The 16 (and indeed 156)-colour gamut is ancient and well-established. I can't imagine a team developing a device that would use the standard keywords and then decide on not following the rest of the standard. Apart from screen differences (we have a client who once complained strongly about our excessive use of pink - #b5b7b9 - on their site), I believe that the actual precise rgb values of these keywords are mapped and static. It'd be good to get an example of that not being the case before concluding that the whole system is liable. Regards, Barney __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] CSS color names values versus accessibility
Apart the 'probably' typo (grey instead of gray) on the David answer the point is: If you specified a color name (one of the 17 valid colors keywords on the Specs) browsers can render it slightly different (i.e. red (or other color name) is more ou less darken according the browser). This can broken the contrast the same way as: #008083 provides a good contrast over #fff and #099 (slightly different from #008083) doesn't provide sufficient contrast. In my opinion, if I'm not missing something, the main point is #008083 (or other valid number color) is the same in all browsers and gray (or one of the 17 valid colors keywords on the Specs) isn't the same across browsers. Number color CSS value is consistent across browsers and colour values isn't. Regards, Maurício Samy Silva http://www.maujor.com/ - Original Message - From: Jukka K. Korpela [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 10:35 AM Subject: Re: [css-d] CSS color names values versus accessibility On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Mauricio Samy Silva wrote: David White said: ...The point about using numbers (I.e. Hex values) instead of names is purely so that there can be no misunderstanding when parsing on the client browser. Some browsers render grey (for example) differently but if you use Hex there can be no ambiguity. ... There is no color name grey in CSS specifications, so the argument is relevant to nonstandard color names only, and they were not under discussion. They are of course to be avoided on the same ground as any other nonstandard constructs (including color codes without # - they too work on some browsers and make the declaration ignored on other, conforming browsers). It makes sense cause sometimes a slightly color difference crashes the threshold for contrast. I don't see how this could be a matter of a slight difference. The name grey is incorrectly recognized as a synonym for gray on some browsers, correctly treated as malformed on some. If there are browsers that accept it and treat it as denoting something _almost_ identitical to gray, then I'd be delighted to hear about such a monstrosity, but this has nothing to with the difference between gray and #808080, which is no difference. By the way, if your contrast is so near to the threshold (as defined by the W3C or some other party) that a _slight_ change makes you cross it, then you were already too near. Crossing the threshold has an extremely small impact in such a situation on real accessibility, even if it may change some technical status by some _measure_ of accessibility. -- Jukka Yucca Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] CSS color names values versus accessibility
On 3/30/07, Mauricio Samy Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Apart the 'probably' typo (grey instead of gray) Yeah, it was a bit hard hearing the (UK) English word described as malformed! -- Chris Ovenden http://thepeer.blogspot.com Imagine all the people / Sharing all the world __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] CSS color names values versus accessibility
Mauricio Samy Silva wrote: Number color CSS value is consistent across browsers and colour values isn't. Mauricio, 'red' is always #ff. f is the largest number expressible in an integer on the hexadecimal scale. 0 is the lowest. #ff000 translates as rgb(255,0,0), which translates as maximum red colouring, no other colouring. There is no ambiguity among browsers, and I would be hard pressed to imagine an ambiguity in the human mind. Even for daltonians, these conceptual figures are undeniable. If you believe this is not followed, please tell us which browsers you have seen - or even heard of - that render 'red' (or any other of the colour keywords) to any other hex value. Regards, Barney PS: 'grey' is a colour, 'gray' is a color. There is no such thing as 'colour' on the internet. All web terminology I've seen uses American English spelling, as opposed to English English. There is no established standard for 'grey' and it is not part of the 256 keywords. __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] CSS color names values versus accessibility
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Mauricio Samy Silva wrote: Apart the 'probably' typo (grey instead of gray) I don't think it was a typo but a reference to a typo, i.e. to the effects of a misspelled color name. If you specified a color name (one of the 17 valid colors keywords on the Specs) browsers can render it slightly different Please provide some evidence for that claim. Just saying so is no proof, any more than I would prove anything by saying that browsers interpret gray consistently but #808080 incorrectly (which I'm not saying, since that wouldn't be true either). This can broken the contrast the same way as: #008083 provides a good contrast over #fff and #099 (slightly different from #008083) doesn't provide sufficient contrast. I already wrote about the relativeness of the contrast, so I'll only repeat the point in my previous message that dealt with the fact that this has nothing to do with color names. There are no color names for #008083 or #099. -- Jukka Yucca Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] CSS color names values versus accessibility
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Chris Ovenden wrote: On 3/30/07, Mauricio Samy Silva [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Apart the 'probably' typo (grey instead of gray) Yeah, it was a bit hard hearing the (UK) English word described as malformed! Yet it is, in CSS. Just like colour is, or couleur, or Farbe. -- Jukka Yucca Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] CSS color names values versus accessibility
On 30 Mar 2007, at 12:05:07, Mauricio Samy Silva wrote: If you specified a color name (one of the 17 valid colors keywords on the Specs) browsers can render it slightly different (i.e. red (or other color name) is more ou less darken according the browser). This can broken the contrast the same way as: #008083 provides a good contrast over #fff and #099 (slightly different from #008083) doesn't provide sufficient contrast. In my opinion, if I'm not missing something, the main point is #008083 (or other valid number color) is the same in all browsers and gray (or one of the 17 valid colors keywords on the Specs) isn't the same across browsers. Number color CSS value is consistent across browsers and colour values isn't. No, the CSS 2.1 spec explicitly states what the hex values for the colour names are: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#value-def-color So, for example, teal is defined as being synonymous with #008080, and any browser which rendered it using a different value is by definition broken. Incidentally, the gray/grey issue isn't helped by the fact that Netscape Navigator had an extensive list of colour names, which included both gray and lightgrey - the story I heard back in the day was that an English developer had been involved in implementing that bit of code, and automatically used the English spelling. As a result, browsers nowadays support both lightgrey and lightgray for backwards compatibility... although none of those extended colour names appear in any formal spec relating to CSS, so that's OT. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Fitzsimons http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] CSS color names values versus accessibility
* Nick Fitzsimons wrote: Incidentally, the gray/grey issue isn't helped by the fact that Netscape Navigator had an extensive list of colour names, which included both gray and lightgrey - the story I heard back in the day was that an English developer had been involved in implementing that bit of code, and automatically used the English spelling. As a result, browsers nowadays support both lightgrey and lightgray for backwards compatibility... although none of those extended colour names appear in any formal spec relating to CSS, so that's OT. http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/#svg-color -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] CSS color names values versus accessibility
On 30 Mar 2007, at 14:26:14, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: * Nick Fitzsimons wrote: Incidentally, the gray/grey issue isn't helped by the fact that Netscape Navigator had an extensive list of colour names, which included both gray and lightgrey - the story I heard back in the day was that an English developer had been involved in implementing that bit of code, and automatically used the English spelling. As a result, browsers nowadays support both lightgrey and lightgray for backwards compatibility... although none of those extended colour names appear in any formal spec relating to CSS, so that's OT. http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/#svg-color Ah, there they are :-) -- Nick Fitzsimons http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] CSS color names values versus accessibility
On 3/30/07, Jukka K. Korpela [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Chris Ovenden wrote: Yeah, it was a bit hard hearing the (UK) English word described as malformed! Yet it is, in CSS. Just like colour is, or couleur, or Farbe. I'm well aware of this. But I have to deal with typing 'color', which to my English eyes looks malformed, every day... Don't you think the Finnish flag looks like a malformed St. Georges' cross? ;-) -- Chris Ovenden http://thepeer.blogspot.com Imagine all the people / Sharing all the world __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] CSS color names values versus accessibility
On 3/30/07, Bryan Hepworth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Chris Ovenden wrote: On 3/30/07, Jukka K. Korpela [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Chris Ovenden wrote: Yeah, it was a bit hard hearing the (UK) English word described as malformed! Yet it is, in CSS. Just like colour is, or couleur, or Farbe. I'm well aware of this. But I have to deal with typing 'color', which to my English eyes looks malformed, every day... Don't you think the Finnish flag looks like a malformed St. Georges' cross? ;-) Nope because that one is blue! pedants corner That's what's malformed about it! (heh) -- Chris Ovenden http://thepeer.blogspot.com Imagine all the people / Sharing all the world __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] CSS color names values versus accessibility
On Fri, 30 Mar 2007, Nick Fitzsimons wrote: browsers nowadays support both lightgrey and lightgray for backwards compatibility... although none of those extended colour names appear in any formal spec relating to CSS, so that's OT. http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/#svg-color Ah, there they are :-) Yes, _there_, in the _draft_ CSS 3 Color Module (W3C Candidate Recommendation 14 May 2003). It has not progressed to Proposed Recommendation status, and neither has anything else happened to it; it's status is perhaps best described as obscure, but it surely isn't a formal specification! It also says: The Working Group doesn't expect that all implementations of CSS3 will implement all properties or values. Instead, there will probably be a small number of variants of CSS3, so-called profiles. For example, it may be that only the profile for 32-bit color user agents will include all of the proposed color related properties and values. Hence, although the extended repertoire of color names (except those using grey) is well supported by browsers in general, it would be unwise to rely on them. As you can see e.g. by viewing the cited draft on Internet Explorer, IE does _not_ recognize grey (or any name containing grey) as a color name. This is correct behavior according to CSS 1 and CSS 2 _specifications_. -- Jukka Yucca Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] CSS color names values versus accessibility
Funny, even though I'm on this side of the pond, I've never been able to write that shade as gray - always looked wrong to me... guess that's why I always use the hex values. Though it certainly confuses family when I say, is my #555 and black jacket still at the cleaners? - daniel the colonies -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Barney Carroll Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 4:20 AM PS: 'grey' is a colour, 'gray' is a color. There is no such thing as 'colour' on the internet. All web terminology I've seen uses American English spelling, as opposed to English English. There is no established standard for 'grey' and it is not part of the 256 keywords. __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] CSS color names values versus accessibility
Hi Mauricio, So, why avoid colors names if they are legal according CSS21 specs? The color names are deprecated in the same sense that certain HTML tags and attributes are. This doesn't mean that they won't continue to be supported by browsers but what W3C recommomend, i.e. hex values, will assure forward and backwards compatibility in CSS. Kieron McIntyre www.digbyswift.com - Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] CSS color names values versus accessibility
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The color names are deprecated in the same sense that certain HTML tags and attributes are. No, they are not. There are explicit statements in HTML specifications saying that some elements and attributes and usages are deprecated. There is nothing comparable about color names, in HTML or in CSS specifications. This doesn't mean that they won't continue to be supported by browsers but what W3C recommomend, i.e. hex values, will assure forward and backwards compatibility in CSS. No, using color names is just as safe, as long as you use only those defined in the specifications and type them correctly. Ignore the statement about color names in the WAI specification. It's very odd, especially since the WAI guideline where it appears deals with _contrast_, which is a quite different issue (and they give no helpful technical references on the contrast issue). You might have a practical reason to avoid the color names, since the set of official names is very small and the colors denoted by them are not very useful - most of them are too strong. But this has nothing to do with accessibility, compatibility, or deprecation. -- Jukka Yucca Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] CSS color names values versus accessibility
Hi Kieron, Are colors names deprecated? So, why color names are on CSS3 Specs? http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-iccprof#colorunits Maurício Samy Silva http://www.maujor.com/ Hi Mauricio, So, why avoid colors names if they are legal according CSS21 specs? The color names are deprecated in the same sense that certain HTML tags and attributes are. This doesn't mean that they won't continue to be supported by browsers but what W3C recommomend, i.e. hex values, will assure forward and backwards compatibility in CSS. Kieron McIntyre www.digbyswift.com __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] CSS color names values versus accessibility
Actually, what the WAI define and what is defined in the CSS specifications are two completely separate things. Just because the CSS 2 and 3 specifications state that colour names CAN be used doesn't mean that they SHOULD be used. I disagree with what you say about it not being an issue. It is extremely important. For example, the corporate colour of a government department I develop work for is teal (#00). Teal on white is not a sufficient colour contrast, so we use #008083 which is sufficient. When used as a text colour, this may as well be teal. But it isn't. Using hex values is safer, more logical, more developer-friendly, and yes it is backwards and forwards compatible. All browsers support hex values but certain older browsers will not support the full gamet of colour names. Also we cannot say for certain that colour names will always be supported (although I too find this unlikely!). I DO agree that sometimes name values are clearer. But consistency and good development practice (e.g. commenting your CSS files with swatch values) I think are more valuable. Kieron McIntyre -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jukka K. Korpela Sent: 29 March 2007 16:49 To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org Subject: Re: [css-d] CSS color names values versus accessibility On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The color names are deprecated in the same sense that certain HTML tags and attributes are. No, they are not. There are explicit statements in HTML specifications saying that some elements and attributes and usages are deprecated. There is nothing comparable about color names, in HTML or in CSS specifications. This doesn't mean that they won't continue to be supported by browsers but what W3C recommomend, i.e. hex values, will assure forward and backwards compatibility in CSS. No, using color names is just as safe, as long as you use only those defined in the specifications and type them correctly. Ignore the statement about color names in the WAI specification. It's very odd, especially since the WAI guideline where it appears deals with _contrast_, which is a quite different issue (and they give no helpful technical references on the contrast issue). You might have a practical reason to avoid the color names, since the set of official names is very small and the colors denoted by them are not very useful - most of them are too strong. But this has nothing to do with accessibility, compatibility, or deprecation. -- Jukka Yucca Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] CSS color names values versus accessibility
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007, Kieron McIntyre wrote: Actually, what the WAI define and what is defined in the CSS specifications are two completely separate things. Just because the CSS 2 and 3 specifications state that colour names CAN be used doesn't mean that they SHOULD be used. That is correct. It does not imply that the WAI statement about color names is correct. I disagree with what you say about it not being an issue. It is extremely important. The use of color names vs. color codes? No, it has absolutely no impact on accessibility or compatibility. It is just a coding style issue, and a very small detail. It's relevant for a small set of colors only. For example, the corporate colour of a government department I develop work for is teal (#00). No, teal is #008080, by definition. Reference: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#value-def-color Teal on white is not a sufficient colour contrast, When measured by the W3C criteria, it is; see e.g. http://juicystudio.com/services/colourcontrast.php (Though it's rather near the threshold.) Anyway, this does not depend on the use of color name vs. color code at all. The color contrast is exactly the same when using teal and when ysing #008080. so we use #008083 which is sufficient. Well, it falls within the criteria too (though it's a little nearer to the threshold). It does not deviate much from teal, but if you like, you can of course use it. This wasn't the issue. The issue was whether using teal was more accessible or more compatible than using #008080, and it isn't. All browsers support hex values but certain older browsers will not support the full gamet of colour names. The use of names not defined in CSS specifications is a different issue. The color names defined in them are just as universally supported as the color codes. Use codes if you like (I usually do). But it's just confusing to ban them as a color contrast issue. -- Jukka Yucca Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ __ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
