Re: New Techniques draft

aloha, charles!

could you please consult with ian as to how he has tweaked his scripts (or 
manually inserted) long descriptions of the screen shots into the plain 
text version of the UAAG techniques document so that you might do the same 
for ATAG?

simply including only the ALT text defined for the screen shot (in some 
cases, accompanied by a trailing "D", which obviously, in the HTML version 
points to the long description, is:

(a) manifestly insufficient;
(b) highly inconsistent with WAI/W3C policy
(c) an outright insult to those who don't have the damn pictures at their 
disposal or for whom graphics are worthless

our guidelines should adhere to WCAG at the Triple-A conformance level, 
period.  anything else is insufficient and a betrayal of those in whose 
name we labor as the Web Accessibility Initiative -- if every permutation 
of our guidelines isn't as accessible as possible, what sort of precedent 
are we setting?  what sort of message are we sending?  do as we say, but 
not necessarily as we do?

there are several excellent long descriptions extant -- they simply need to 
be rolled into the plain text version of the document, consistently and 
without exception...  i have been singing this tune for quite some time in 
the WAI, and have frequently expressed my concerns about lack of 
descriptive text to the editors of other W3C documents when they have asked 
PF to review them -- if the work of the WAI is to permeate the W3C and web 
culture as a whole, we must lead the way...  case in point--at WWW9, the 
program, list of speakers, papers, & proceedings were available in 
hypertext on a CD-ROM, the index.html page of which was a FRAMESET which, 
while it did contain a NOFRAMES element, misused that markup to inform the 
user that he or she needed a frames-capable browser to peruse the contents 
of the CD-ROM....  if the organizers of the WWW conferences can't produce 
accessible media, what exactly have we accomplished over the past 3 years?

charles, this isn't a personal attack on you (i know you know that), nor an 
attack on ATAG -- it is an expression of frustration with the second-class 
treatment that the plain text versions of documents are accorded, and i am 
seriously concerned that by failing to comply to WCAG at the highest 
possible level -- such as the failure to provide an alternative equivalent 
to the screen shots -- we are simply providing fodder to the rather nasty 
backlash which has been festering in the grass-roots, as individuals wait 
for our work to make an actual difference in their daily and professional 
lives...

signed, gregory (who is still mostly offline, but who did hear of a new 
techniques draft and got someone to download a copy of the zipped HTML 
version and the plain text version, which -- due to my systems' 
instabilities -- is far easier for me to process than the HTML version...)

At 01:34 PM 9/18/00 -0400, you wrote:
>I have put a new techniques draft in place at
>http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WD-ATAG10-TECHS-20000918/ for your perusal,
>enjoyment, and review. There are some techniques added and I have put a note
>in the status and "how the techniques are organised section" linking the
>evaluation document - that would be a good thing to get some review on too.
>
>Another thing to look at is what parts of the techniques need work and would
>make good work items for then face to face meeting in Bristol. Reminder -
>please register...
>
>We should publish a new Public Techniques draft soon with at least an initial
>version of the evaluation stuff - it's a W3C process requirement to publish
>regularly, and it is supposed to be on the TR page (which means review by the
>Interest group first).
>
>cheers
>
>Charles
>--
>Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org  phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
>W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
>Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
>September - November 2000:
>W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, 
>France

Received on Wednesday, 20 September 2000 13:39:11 UTC