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

RE: Text equivalents

From: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2000 09:17:27 -0500
To: "Jonathan Chetwynd" <jay@peepo.com>
Cc: "Web Content Accessiblity Guidelines Mailing List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000b01bf901b$85bdfa00$53fe330a@msde>
> By Bruce's argument there's not much point in meeting P1 if its not
> accessible to those with cognitive disability.

I fail to see how you arrive at this conclusion!
What did I write that would support such an absurd claim?

[snip]

>> I think Gregory's point is that we should be looking for model 
>> pages/sites
>> that meet your and Jonathan's expectations that are *ALSO* P1 compliant.
>> There is not much virtue to addressing cognitive issues if such
>> accommodations break the pages for other users.
>>
>> I would also point out that text equivalents (i.e., machine readability)
>> will still be important for the next- next-generation of 
>> browsers.  Those
>> products could incorporated significant artificial intelligence that
>> provides highlighting of salient points and selective self-voicing
>> prompts,
>> hints, and guides.  The very thing you wrote about doing as a human
>> looking
>> over the shoulder of one of your clients!  Those smart user agents will
>> gracefully handle text long before they can deal effectively with
>> graphics.
>>
>> If this discussion is going to be productive, someone who is a content
>> expert in this field (i.e., you or Jonathan) needs to lucidly address
>> Gregg V.'s last question:
>>
>>> 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 Friday, 17 March 2000 09:22:17 GMT

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