W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 1999

Re: mistake in web page

From: Wendy A Chisholm <chisholm@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 14:44:13 -0500
Message-Id: <199908311944.OAA24062@trace.wisc.edu>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

We caught the same statement in the introduction during last call, but we
must have missed this one in the guideline text. 

In the Introducation we more clearly describe text equivalents and non-text
equivalents.  Including the following paragraph:

Non-text equivalents of text (e.g., icons, pre-recorded speech, or a video
of a person translating the text into sign language) can make documents
accessible to people who may have difficulty accessing written text,
including many individuals with cognitive disabilities, learning
disabilities, and deafness. Non-text equivalents of text can also be
helpful to non-readers. An auditory description is an example of a non-text
equivalent of visual information. An auditory description of a multimedia
presentation's visual track benefits people who cannot see the visual

I propose that we direct people to the Introduction from the errata page
and edit the text of Guideline 1 in a future version.

The entry in the errata page might read something like this:
3.  Clarification of rationale for Guideline 1
Added: 1 September 1999
Class: clarification
The rationale for Guideline 1 is confusing because it implies that people
with deafness benefit from the use of synthesized speech ("...Synthesized
speech is critical for individuals who are blind and for many people with
the reading difficulties that often accompany cognitive disabilities,
learning disabilities, and deafness....")    The issue that some people
with deafness, cognitive and learning disabilities may share is a
difficulty reading written text.  Sign language is often the primary
language for many people with deafness, thus written text is secondary and
they may not be as fluent.  Please refer to the discussion of text and
non-text equivalents in the Introduction to the Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines.  (http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505/#Introduction)


At 10:11 AM 8/31/99 , you wrote:
>I believe the intent here was to say something like:
>"Also, synthesized speech is (may be) critical for people with the speaking
>difficulties that sometimes accompany cognitive disabilities, learning
>disabilities (?), and deafness."
>Perhaps the confusion could be fixed simply by saying:
>"Synthesized speech is critical for individuals who are blind and for many
>people with the reading or speaking difficulties that often accompany
>cognitive disabilities, learning disabilities, and deafness." ,
>although this might be too convoluted to be entirely clear.
>Maybe a separate sentence is indeed needed.
>Chuck Letourneau
>At 30/08/99 11:03 AM , keren beth moses wrote:
>>Here's one mistake in the w3c accessibility guidelines:
>>"Synthesized speech is critical for individuals who are blind and for many
>>people with the reading difficulties that often accompany cognitive
>>disabilities, learning disabilities, and deafness."  (Guideline 1)
>>Maybe just too much info in one sentence, but it implies that synthesized
>>speech is critical for the deaf.
>>-- Keren
>Starling Access Services
> "Access A World Of Possibility"
>  e-mail: info@starlingweb.com
>   URL: http://www.starlingweb.com
>    Phone: 613-820-2272  FAX: 613-820-6983
wendy chisholm
human factors engineer
trace research and development center
university of wisconsin - madison, USA
Received on Tuesday, 31 August 1999 15:44:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:30 UTC