W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > January 2001

Re: example of site where text-only does not convey all info

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:43:17 -0800
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20010122163802.02a2f920@mail.gorge.net>
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Cc: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
At 03:27 PM 1/22/01 -0800, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>Maybe we don't mean equivalent at all.

If a person can find out when the train's coming, order flowers, or get a 
synopsis of "War and Peace" using the alternate version.

Ultimately it's pragmatics at its best. Kelly Ford had a problem ordering 
groceries and if the alternate version allows him to do so then it is for 
his purposes equivalent.

Or some such. I don't think he'll be as concerned about sunsets but might 
well like to know something about why they have some emotive affect on the 
retinally-blessed?

Maybe it falls into the "I don't know what it means but I know it when I 
encounter it" category. But I'll bet there's widespread agreement in a lot 
of cases as to whether an "equivalent site" works and we hope to codify 
what it takes to make how to do that clear.

--
Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Monday, 22 January 2001 19:42:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:38 GMT