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

Re: Illustrating Guidelines

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 16:57:49 -0400
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20010511165053.00bb0af0@localhost>
To: apembert45@lycos.com, apembert45@lycos.com, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org, "Matt May" <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>
The discussion is beginning to degrade...that must mean we are close to a 
resolution? <grin/>  I certainly hope so.  I have done my best to get my 
head around the issues and to see as many perspectives on this issue as 
possible.  I have documented my thoughts at: 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2001/05/cog-notes.html

I have called it <q>Wendy's unillustrated notes, thoughts, and questions 
about the recent WCAG WG "Illustrating Guidelines" thread</q> because it is 
very dense text and does not have one single illustration. 
<grin/>  However, I tried to provide assistance for people who only want to 
skim the most important parts - e.g. using boxes, bold text, italic text, 
and lists.

It is a living document, and will continue to change until we come to 
consensus on this topic.  Anyone want to add anything?  Have I grossly 
misinterpreted something?  Let me know!

Here is the table of contents:
Axes of discussion
Rough summary of main points of discussion
Research
To do's and questions
Conclusions
Open Issues

Be well.  Be civil.  See each other's perspectives.  Have patience.  We 
<em>will</em> get through this.  It doesn't mean we all have to agree, but 
that we agree to move forward.
--wendy

At 03:02 PM 5/11/01 , Anne Pemberton wrote:
>Matt,
>
>     Your basic logic has a serious flaw that is probably contributing to 
> failure to comprehend the similarities I'm presenting...
>
>You said: >MM No, it isn't. Not in the same way alt text is necessary to 
>blind users.
> >Without alt text, 100% of blind users will fail to receive information from
> >an image. The presence of alt text on an image makes access to data less
> >than impossible. The same is not true of illustrations: 100% of the
> >cognitively disabled will not fail to receive a document that's not
> >illustrated.
>
>First, lets keep both examples in the apple orchard ...
>
>You are correct that without alt text, 100% of blind users will fail to 
>receive information from an image.
>
>It is equally correct that without graphics, 100% of non-readers will fail 
>to receive information from text ...
>
>Or, we can move to the orange grove ...
>
>
>100% of blind users will not fail to receive a document whether or not it 
>has alt text.
>
>and
>
>100% of non-readers will not fail to receive a document whether or not is 
>has a graphic.
>
>Do you understand where you err? Or do I need to illustrate the logic?
>
>                         Anne
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>Anne Pemberton
>apembert@erols.com
>apembert45@yahoo.com
>apembert45@lycos.com
>apembert@pen.k12.va.us
>
>http://www.erols.com/stevepem
>http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
>
>On Fri, 11 May 2001 09:00:25
>  Matt May wrote:
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Anne Pemberton" <apembert45@lycos.com>
> >>     Lisa didn't just find the illustrations "nice", she found they helped
> >her more quickly and efficiently process the content. I think that is the
> >point you are missing, tho I've no clue why. This is not just about making
> >the web "nice", or even "more friendly", tho there are some checkpoints that
> >do no more than that already (such as synchronizing scripts).
> >
> >MM Synchronized text (WCAG1 1.4, WCAG2 1.2) allows deaf users to receive
> >pure audio content in multimedia presentations. Synchronized auditory
> >descriptions (1.3 in both) allow blind users to receive pure visual content
> >in multimedia. Both of these are more than "nice" and "friendly".
> >
> >> The definition of priorities is that, for P1 priority, it needs to be
> >necessary for a substantial number of users. This is the case with graphics
> >and multi-media.
> >
> >MM No, it isn't. Not in the same way alt text is necessary to blind users.
> >Without alt text, 100% of blind users will fail to receive information from
> >an image. The presence of alt text on an image makes access to data less
> >than impossible. The same is not true of illustrations: 100% of the
> >cognitively disabled will not fail to receive a document that's not
> >illustrated.
> >
> >P1 compliance doesn't make every web page a utopian paradise for blind
> >users, either. All it does is make it less than impossible for everyone to
> >receive the ones and zeroes such that their computer can present it to them.
> >(This bears repeating: the _computer_, or rather the physical human
> >interface device, is the dropoff point for most of the checkpoints. How it
> >gets from the HID of the user's choice into his or her brain is not
> >something that's easy to quantify.)
> >
> >What is necessary is the use of _good_ illustration through graphics and
> >multimedia, and what is "good" is extremely dependent on the content being
> >presented, and -- I'll say it again -- the _people_ who are producing the
> >content. The number of people who are capable of creating illustrations,
> >audio, motion video, or interactivity is extremely small relative to those
> >who can produce text or HTML, and the subset who can do multimedia in a way
> >that complements the text is a small fraction of that. You can require
> >multimedia all day long, but if they don't have the tools (which are
> >expensive) and the skills (which take months to build and years to master),
> >what we'll get is a web full of silly, irrelevant clip art someone tacked on
> >because we (or a tool like Bobby) said it's "accessible."
> >
> >I want to see guidelines that can be easily followed without significant
> >retooling by content providers, and rules that are proven to increase access
> >to people with all disabilities, but _without_ reducing usability for the
> >rest of the users of the web. Forcing illustration and multimedia without
> >regard to who is providing it or what it's being used for as a P1 is not the
> >way to improve accessibility or usability to the web as a whole.
> >
> >> I'm not sure how "fairly common" it is to browse with images turned off...
> >On this list, some folks say they use the web that way, but in my life away
> >from this list, NO ONE I KNOW uses the web that way! Just as I don't know
> >anyone in real life who uses television without the screen on, or listens to
> >anything but music on the radio....
> >
> >Blind users browse without the help of images, and watch TV without their
> >eyes. That's pretty common. There is also a measurable percentage of the web
> >who browse without images using Lynx, or by manually turning their images
> >off to save download speed.
> >
> >-
> >m
> >
> >
>
>
>Get 250 color business cards for FREE!
>http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/

--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
seattle, wa usa
tel: +1 206.706.5263
/--
Received on Friday, 11 May 2001 16:54:49 GMT

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