W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re: anne's first G3 mockup

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 06:55:51 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: "gregory j. rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

	Indeed, I am still working on the g3 page, and uploaded another "version"
last night.

	I think you'll find there are more alt tags with this version, plus a
variety of other changes.

	Since I don't know which version you first looked at, I am unsure where
you had problems. The mock-up is intented to study the graphics I'm using
and determine the adequacy of the graphics for the purpose. There are two
styles of "illustrations" on the page - ones that are just graphics (they
are now small graphics on the page that can be clicked on to see the full
size), and those that are made from a table and should be very readable and
usable by anyone. 

	I'm thinking the small versions are too small and need to be readable. Any


At 09:27 PM 4/19/01 -0400, gregory j. rosmaita wrote:
>  this is from 12 april 2001 -- it failed to slip the surly  bonds of my
>system, and from the mail archive, it is clear both that (a) anne  has
>continued to work on her G3 mockup, and (b) the issues raised below  still
>  so, while my comments are based on  earlier
>  note as
>well that, save for spacer images and what serves as  a pseudo-header for the
>page, i have inserted placeholder ALT text, as i have  no idea what the
>graphics contain, nor could the sighted individual who told  me that the
>image used as a pseudo-header is an image of text adequately  encapsulate the
>contents of the graphics ("i don't even know where to  begin.." was all i
>could elicit)
>--- Begin Resend  ---
>aloha, anne!
>as we've discussed in the past, simply because a site  is intended for use by
>those who are classified as "non-readers" or "readers  who need supplemental
>graphical/iconic information in order to contextualize  and understand
>content", doesn't mean that one should:
>a) use invalid  markup -- ALT, after all, is a REQUIRED attribute of HTML in
>its most current  iteration; simply declaring a legacy DTD in one's document
>(or allowing one's  authoring tool to do so) doesn't exempt one from the
>obligation to provide  alternative content for
>modality specific information
>or, b)  selectively implement WCAG
>i have absolutely no objection to
>the use  of graphics, icons, or visual cues -- in fact, as someone who was
>fully  sighted for 20 years before losing his vision, i appreciate the value
>of a  good illustration, graphic, or icon -- but that does not exempt one
>from the  obligation to ensure that one's pages aren't usable in a single
>modality,  and, anne, your mockup is only usable in a single modality...
>part of the  reason may be your use of Publisher as a web authoring tool--it
>is my  understanding that Publisher is primarily intended as a desktop
>publishing  tool into which a "save as HTML" or "save to Web" functionality
>was added at  the request of users who wanted to replicate materials they had
>  and, unless things have changed since  i
>investigated Publisher for the AU WG a year ago, it does a pretty poor  job
>of converting to HTML because the "save as HTML" option was perceived  by
>Publishers' developers as an add-on intended solely for the convenience  of
>Publisher users, and not in order to transform Publisher into a  dedicated
>  note: i am not trashing Publisher, but  merely
>pointing out that it isn't the optimal developmental environment for  web
>content--it is a desktop publishing environment, which means that it is  so
>intensely WYSIWYG-oriented that, at least in the version i played with,  it
>turned actual text into graphics of text in order to preserve text  flows
>around inline graphical objects, with the inevitable result that when  one
>simply increased the font size, the text-flow completely breaks down, not  to
>  in  the
>desktop publishing environment, the WYSIWYG (what you see is what you  get)
>concept can actually work--providing the author with  a
>reasonably-to-extremely accurate (depending upon the hardware and  software
>the author is running) portrayal of what will result from the  issuance of a
>  and, of course, unlike the web, once it  is printed, it
>would look the same in bangkok as it does in birmingham or in  benin--which
>can't be said for the electronic version of the  document...
>perusing the document source underlying your markup reminded  me of a
>scenario brought to the attention of the User Agent WG by denis  anson,
>who described the case of an individual with a form of brain damage  that
>caused a sensory overload, thereby opening a perceptual black hole,  which
>  to
>illustrate the problem encountered by this individual, denis  used the
>example of a poker game--apparently, this individual was a hell of a  five
>card stud player, but if he attempted to play poker with more  than
>five cards in his hand, he lost the ability to process the contents  of
>  the end result was a request for  a
>browser setting which would allow a user to toggle the rendering  of
>images on and off on a per-image basis so that a graphics heavy page  (or
>one on which graphics have been extensively used to illustrate  concepts)
>need not cause a sensory overload that makes the contents of the  page
>completely inaccessible...
>  because it  illustrates the point that there are no
>  graphics without textual equivalents
>are not a solution  for all users with cognative disabilities--while some
>need graphical  reinforcement of concepts conveyed primarily through text,
>some need textual  descriptions of a graphical object in order to decide
>whether or not to  toggle rendering of the image on...
>the bottom line is, no matter whom  your target audience may be, there is
>no excuse for not applying all of WCAG  to your document source, which
>means (a) validating your markup, and (b)  providing textual equivalents
>for graphical information, especially when  graphics are used to convey
>information not contained textually in the body  of the document, is
>necessary, even if you are personally convinced that in  ninety-nine per
>cent of all cases, end users of your content will not only  have image
>loading turned on, but are capable of perceiving graphical  content...
>all that being said, i have deconstructed your mockup and  attached it to
>this emessage--following my signature, i have also read into  this post a
>Lynx-generated text-image of your original page and my  rudimentary ER
>--- Lynx Text Image of Anne's  Original G3 mockup ---
>    [INLINE]
>                       3.1 Use consistent presentation.
>   [INLINE]
>    [INLINE]
>   [INLINE]
>   [INLINE]
>    3.2 Emphasize structure through presentation, positioning, and  labels.
>   [INLINE]
>   [INLINE]
>    [INLINE]
>   [1][USEMAP]
>--- Lynx Text Image of GJR's Quick  Corrections to Anne's G3 Mockup ---
>   Guideline  3
>                       3.1 Use consistent presentation.
>   I Have No Idea What This  Graphic Portrays
>   I Don't Know What This Graphic Portrays  Either
>   3.2 Emphasize structure through presentation,  positioning, and labels.
>   I don't know what information this  graphic was intended to communicate
>   [1]I don't know from the  markup exactly what this IMG illustrates.
>  Attachment Converted: "c:\eud-anne\attach\G3_gjr.htm" 
Anne Pemberton

Received on Friday, 20 April 2001 06:49:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:36 UTC