“8% of men and 0.5 percent of women have some form of color blindness. For
some Web sites that could translate to 1 in 12 visitors.”
Which means that up to the time of this reply at least one of the
contributors to this thread probably has some form of colour blindness.
Now such a small percentage when you can name them.
Regards, Trevor
British Sign Language is not inarticulate handwaving; it’s a living language.
Support the campaign for formal recognition by the British government now!
Details at http://www.fdp.org.uk/
We checked above site to find that our new color scheme
is not easy for protanope (another form of red/green color deficit)
person. We still continues to search how should we do.
Since it seems to take a few days, I droped color definitions
from the css temporalily.
You did not change the Japanese version; no color-blind people in Japan? (*)
I see no need to choose colors based on readability
by such a small percentage of the population.
Your response makes color-blind Rubyists (like me) so angry that we’re
seeing red.
Well, I guess it’s red.
OK, I am not opposed to accessibility for
color-blind people. I just like to see it
kept on the browser side.
I don’t know much about CSS, but someone
indicated that it should be easy to make
the colors adjustable on the client side.
And if proper web design can facilitate
that kind of thing, then so be it.
I just don’t want to see a lowest-common-
denominator web or even move in that
direction. That is as bad as the opposite
extreme, in which every page is marked
with “Best viewed with XYZ browser.” A
monochromatic web? “Shades of Grey” like
the Billy Joel song? No, thanks. That would
make the other 91.5% of us effectively
color-blind as well.
But now I’m just ranting pointlessly, and
I will shut up. I’m not color-blind, and
I’m not the designer of ruby-lang.org, so
it is really none of my business.
And it’s certainly not a significant issue
for me. I just happen to like colors. And
rubies are red, so the association is natural.
FWIW, if rubyhacker.com is considered
unreadable by Lyle or Guy or others, I will
change it. I don’t use CSS at all, but I
suppose I could/should.
Cheers,
Hal
···
----- Original Message -----
From: “Lyle Johnson” lyle@users.sourceforge.net
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ruby
To: “ruby-talk ML” ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 7:21 AM
Subject: Re: Toward ruby-lang.org renewal; trial website offered
You did not change the Japanese version; no color-blind people in Japan? (*)
As you wrote, no.
We still are changing color schemes. We checked the
vischeck site to find the problem for protanope person.
In Japanese version, we switched color of links for
contrast. It seems that we cab get a little better
result with vischeck test. Anyway, we continue
researching…
FWIW, if rubyhacker.com is considered
unreadable by Lyle or Guy or others, I will
change it. I don’t use CSS at all, but I
suppose I could/should.
I can read the new Ruby site, as well as Hal’s web site, just fine. As
Hal well knows, I am just a smart-aleck and you couldn’t pass up the
opportunity to make a joke about my color-blindness
For me, the contrasting colors (e.g. red text on a white background)
work fine for me. As Tim Bates pointed out, it would be more of an issue
for me if it were, say, red text on a green background or something like
that.
(*)