- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 06:22:32 -0700
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Further consideration has convinced me that 1.1 is too specific
Although "1.1 Provide a text equivalent for all non-text content." is
almost our "poster child", the fact is that text is not sacred and that
this is a proper target for the same kinds of complaints that were lodged
about WCAG 1 insofar as being too "technology-specific" in its use of HTML
examples in what should have been a more abstract/general setting.
We really mean to encourage all repurposing of content, yes, even including
the possibility of alternatives for text, no matter how counter-intuitive
that seems to those of us immersed in and habituated to its use. Text is
not sacred. It is not the first among equals.
"Provide alternative equivalents for all content" obviously needs a lot of
expansion because this document itself flies in the face of such an edict.
Please, let's keep trying. Clearly the notions of "where appropriate" and
"within reason" and such-like will come into play, but pretending that our
goal is really widespread (Universal?) accessibility while couching it all
in forms (like this!) that exclude so many people is somewhere between
hypocritical and careless.
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Monday, 21 May 2001 09:20:37 UTC