- From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>
- Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 08:05:59 -0400
- To: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 12:09 PM 8/3/1999 +1000, Jason White wrote: >I agree with the sentiments that Chris has expressed. Research findings >should be able to indicate what types of cognitive limitations exist, the >kinds of communication strategies which have proved most effective in >minimising their impact, etc. At this stage we do not appear to have broad >agreement even in connection with such basic points. The most basic need is for graphics to be deliberately included on web sites to aid understanding of the text. We have gone off on a tangent as to whether or how to replace text with all graphics, but the most basic need is for the graphics to be there, whether they replace all text, or just clarify the main ideas. The next question >would be, which solutions are best applicable universally, across the web >as a whole, and ought therefore to be included in the guidelines. We >already have one such proposal, namely the priority 1 checkpoint which >demands that language be kept as clear and straightforward as possible, This is a very subjective checkpoint. Of the many web sites that have been shown as examples of those complying with priority one and two, few had language was far from "clear and straightforward" through the eyes of someone with a moderate or significant cognitive disability. >and a priority 3 suggestion that graphical supplements are a suitable aid >to comprehension where applicable and appropriate. This needs to be much stronger to be of any help to cognitively disabled folks. The graphics MUST BE THERE. In order for some users to access the content of the web, the graphics must be turned off. In order for other users to access the content of the web, the text must be turned on. If the text is turned off, and there is non content, then the web shouldn't be given a "compliance" rating at any priority level. At present, a web site that contains nothing but text, can get a compliance rating. This shouldn't be. A web site without graphics locks out too many disabled users. Over the weekend, I spent some time on the web gathering sources to use in homeschooling an 8 yr old. One of the sites that shows promise is www.seaworld.com This site contains a significant number of images of sea life, as well as details on each animal. Unfortunately, the site was set up to put all the images in one place, and all the descriptions in another. The descriptions are all-text without a picture of the animal being described even tho the site does contain a picture of the animal that belongs on the description page. For reasons I cannot fathom, those who create web sites are not following the most basic of structures used in children's books and picture books & magazines for older folks, putting the graphics on the page with (or facing) the text it applies to. For those who want research, let Jonathan's folks access the www.seaworld.com site and let Jonathan report back on the experience. This will help us understand what is needed, in addition to just adding graphics, to make a site accessible for Jonathan's cognitively disabled folks. Anne Anne L. Pemberton http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Pav/Academy1 http://www.erols.com/stevepem/apembert apembert@crosslink.net Enabling Support Foundation http://www.enabling.org
Received on Tuesday, 3 August 1999 07:54:35 UTC