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

Re: Text equivalents and cognitive considerations

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 08:46:29 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20000316084629.007bfe70@apembert.pop.crosslink.net>
To: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 10:30 AM 3/16/2000 +1100, Jason White wrote:
>I think the suggestion to require every web page to include graphics or
>other non-textual components is deeply flawed, for although there are many
>circumstances in which this would aid comprehension, there are others in
>which it would not do so. The guidelines therefore suggest that graphics
>be used where these would assist in the comprehension of the material.
>There are two areas where I think we can make advances, either in the
>guidelines themselves or in the techniques document:

If this is so, then the guidelines will remain seriously flawed and could
be easily overturned by a court challenge. (The cognitively disabled
population itself is not now overly litigious, but their
parents/families/guardians have achieved significant accommodations in the
schools through litigation. The lesson has been learned.) 

Can you provide examples of "others" which would not be aided by the
inclusion of non-text elements to aide comprehension? I have difficulty
imaging what they could be, or why there would be sufficient numbers of
such to render the suggestions "deeply flawed". 

					Anne


Anne L. Pemberton
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Pav/Academy1
http://www.erols.com/stevepem/Homeschooling
apembert@crosslink.net
Enabling Support Foundation
http://www.enabling.org
Received on Thursday, 16 March 2000 09:20:30 GMT

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