W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2000

Feelings was: Text equivalents and cognitive considerations

From: Jonathan Chetwynd <jay@peepo.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:18:28 -0000
Message-ID: <005b01bf8ea2$9f128360$09459fd4@myworkstation>
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
Cc: "GL - WAI Guidelines WG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I now have 2 feely mice, due to the kindness of the manufacturers.
They have not yet been launched in the UK.
I have also upgraded to windows 98.

However USB is getting me down.
I am not sure if my port never worked, if its the mice, the software, me or
what.

Has anyone out there got one of these blessed things to work?

Its not just my clients who'd benefit from a feely web, spiders rely on it,
and a few friends are desperate to have a go.

tx

just so you don't all think its off topic, when/where do the guidelines
extol the necessities of providing feely sites for people (like me(oops))
who prefer this form of comms.

jay@peepo.com

Jonathan Chetwynd
special needs teacher and
web accessibility consultant.
----- Original Message -----
From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Cc: GL - WAI Guidelines WG (E-mail) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 6:37 AM
Subject: Re: Text equivalents and cognitive considerations


> I agree with Gregg that providing graphics, making sure text is electronic
> and keeping language and page structure simpe is the way we are going to
get
> the best results. I happen to think, based on my experience in using the
> guidelines and in the way they have been applied, that the priority of
> illustrating pages with graphics has been placed too low. And very little
> attention has been given to it in general, which is a shame.
> In actual fact I suspect there is also value in adding sound to pages,
> although the current techniques for that are extremely expensive in terms
of
> bandwidth/storage and even in requirng specialised softwaqrre to deal with
a
> mess of proietary and competing formats.
>
> Charles mcCN
>
>
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> [snip]
>   the electronic text approach seems the most universal approach across
>   disabilities including those with problems dealing with (or an inability
to
>   deal with)  printed text.
> [snip]
>   RE: PEOPLE WHO CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE TEXT EVEN IF IT IS READ TO THEM.
> [snip]
>   USE OF GRAPHICS TO FACILITATE UNDERSTANDING OF TEXT (READ OR LISTENED
TO)
>   I do think (and so do others) that pictures and graphics can be added to
a
>   page such that it is easier to understand the page (even if it is being
read
>   to a person).  Thus there is a guideline that puts a priority on that.
>   There is also one that states that the language on a site be as simple
as
>   appropriate for that site so that when it is read to a person - they
will
>   have the maximum chance of understanding it.   The phrase "as
appropriate"
>   was added since there are sites ranging everywhere from shopping (where
very
>   straight forward language can and should be used) to thermodynamics and
>   particle physics (where more complex language is required).
> [snip]
>   Is there something that you think we should do besides:
>
>   1) making sure all text is electronic (so that it can be read to the
user by
>   their browser)
>
>   2) encouraging the use of graphics on a page  and
>
>   3) keeping the language as simple as possible
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 15 March 2000 12:22:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:01 GMT