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

Re: Clarification Of Technique 1.3

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 09:25:38 -0700
Message-ID: <39899D02.A9AA09D0@gorge.net>
To: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>, WAI WCAG List <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
CC: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
WC:: "Thoughts?  Are there other examples where the need for an auditory 
description is questionable? where context may determine if it is
required or not?"

WL: In a way it's great that we are dealing with this micro-granular 
level of analysis as it relates to accessibility. The "need" for
descriptions of music videos begs the question of "required" since it
will always: 1)depend on author whims; 2)depend on context; 3)seem
trivial to those not affected.

On the one hand demands for universal provision of narratives for
*everything* that might be posted to the Web invite ridicule and PC
jokes, on the other these things are vital to some users.

Must every nuance of everything be described - even for those who: don't
care?; can't be expected to understand? Do we have to explain the
cultural meanings of arcane references ("in this case 'bad' actually
means 'good' as evidenced by the appearance of the user of the term who
is obviously (to whom?)...)? 

I think the difference between this issue and whether all links are
labeled "click here" is several orders of magnitude. Many will argue
that it's not too much of a stretch to expect that it will be
career-vital to a blind user to know that Sinead's head is shaved,
but... (maybe she's on chemos and it's rude to point out her baldness
<g?>) 

Please excuse the ramblings of creeping senility but I believe there are
more pressing matters.
-- 
Love.
            ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
http://dicomp.pair.com
Received on Thursday, 3 August 2000 12:26:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:05 GMT