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

Re: Against zero-sum games

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 19:28:24 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: "gregory j. rosmaita" <oedipus@hicom.net>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

     With my limited knowledge of specifics in technologies, we can go
either of two choices - 1) work to put everything onto each page, and have
people tripping over other folks' needs, or put some of the requirements on
a site, rather than a page level ... there will be pages of text and
illustrations perhaps with accompanying sound files, but multi-media would
be linked from a page "other modality page" rather than *ON* the other
modality page ....

	On the multi-media page, we need to specify the controls that are needed
for accessibility - such as the ability to stop, pause, back up a bit, play
forward, etc. If it is felt that these controls are needed on each and
every type of multi-media, then the guidelines need to specify the minimum
types of controls that are necessary. 

     I did include illustrations and sound files with the text page. I
don't feel there is any need for an "all text version" ... It is easy in
any/all? browsers to turn off the illustrations, and sounds files can be
controllable by the user (if by turning the speaker off if all else fails!)
... So all these can reside on the same page... 


At 05:35 PM 5/13/01 -0400, gregory j. rosmaita wrote:
>amen, brother!
>that's precisely one of the point i've been attempting to articulate for the
>past god-knows-how long -- false dichotomies are the most effective form of
>divide-and-conquer...  accessibility isn't an either-or proposition, nor
>should it ever be presented as such, which is why any attempt to make WCAG a
>blueprint for "specialized" design runs counter to the very concept of
>accessibility...  the entire point of WCAG is to provide solutions -- we
>simply need to step back, take a deep breath, and expend our energies on
>providing interoperable solutions -- a term which we must understand as
>pertaining not only to technology, but modalities and functionalities as
>well -- rather than in perpetuating threads in which we reargue the same
>issues we've been arguing for the past 4 years...
>which is why it is incumbent upon us, as a working group, to ensure that
>WCAG 2.0 is the synthesis of:
>technical expertise -- how does one break down barriers to comprehension and
>functionality in one modality without erecting barriers to comprehension and
>functionality in another?
>practical knowledge -- what is optimal, what is necessary, what is required
>by spec, what is interoperable, what is actually supported by the
>technology, how users use the technology, why, and how, and if, they can be
>convinced to change
>common sense -- or, rather, what i'd prefer to call "common sense", but
>which practical experience has taught me is more accurately called "uncommon
>sense", of which, intelligent curb-cut design is an excellent example
>real-life experience -- a large chunk of which consists of listening closely
>to what actual users have to say about what works and what doesn't, which
>also implies testing contested/competing solutions
>RATIONAL, adj.  Devoid of all delusions save those of observation,
>experience and reflection.
>	--                Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
>Gregory J. Rosmaita, oedipus@hicom.net
>          Camera Obscura: http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html
Anne Pemberton

Received on Sunday, 13 May 2001 19:19:59 UTC

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