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

Re: Illustrating Guidelines

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 09:58:31 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: "Matt May" <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 09:34 AM 5/12/01 -0700, Matt May wrote:
>There is a reason good multimedia is good multimedia

There is a reason good text is good text.

There is a reason good Websites are good Websites.

The "requirement" to use alt-text also results in ineffective 
implementations thereof, same with "multimedia" - text is merely one aspect 
of multimedia, not some universally "good" method. People put useless stuff 
in alt to pass Bobby, I would presume, but we still "require" it.

We spend hours crafting every syllable of something like WCAG and things 
like the QuickTips and other EO documents. That we don't put at least part 
of that time into the other *equally important* elements of what are, like 
it or not, multimedia presentations, is a sin and a shame.

The earcons in http://rdf.pair.com/xguide.htm could be argued about as 
endlessly and effectively as the similar arguments about whether alt=" " or 
alt="" were acceptable or if the particular choices of words got the 
meanings across in a way acceptable to all users. Same with all the 
proposed illustrations. The details of their selection and presentation 
should concern us - IMO it is no longer sane to pretend that there's no 
excuse for them to be there. Stuff like this works and *MUST* be part of 
our effort and *MUST* be part of our recommendation. Does this equate to a 
proposal that there have to be drawings to illustrate each concept? No.

Received on Saturday, 12 May 2001 12:56:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:37 UTC