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

Re: Graphic Designers work - potential for WCAG?

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 20:58:57 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.20010522205857.00805310@pop.erols.com>
To: "Matt May" <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Matt,

   Whatever multi-media you are planning to create in, please know that
shockwave crashes on an NT system, Flash does not .... Folks who are
accessing information on a work system may have NT, and would be more able
to use Flash ...

					Anne

At 04:31 PM 5/22/01 -0700, Matt May wrote:
>The thread so far seems to be taking for granted the concept that graphical
>elements will be added to a single, monolithic guidelines document, and I'd
>like to challenge that assumption. I think that we should consider the
>development of a non-text-oriented guidelines implementation as an adjunct
>to the current model.
>
>The core of HTML, which, while hacked over the years to accommodate various
>forms of multimedia, was designed to present textual information in a
>structured format such as that used in the W3C specifications. I think it's
>important that, at least, one way the guidelines are presented is in the
>same structured format we have now. Graphical examples, icons and earcons
>inside each guideline and checkpoint have the effect of adding clutter that
>detracts from the familiar structure of the document, which is an access
>problem all its own.
>
>The only way around this limitation is to design to the strengths of
>graphical and multimedia presentation to explain the content of the
>document. If this is done using, say, SVG, it could be linked with the HTML
>guidelines, and it wouldn't violate the checkpoint on using languages, etc.
>that can be made accessible (Flash being a severe trouble spot here).
>
>In fact, I think this is something we need to consider in our discussion of
>the inclusion of graphics and multimedia with a view toward accessibility:
>the most effective repurposing of an awful lot of content depends on that
>content being restructured (or even rewritten) for the medium. The most
>basic example of that is that newscasters don't read magazine articles on
>the air, and magazines don't print TV transcripts. If the presence of other
>media is a requirement, it's essential that the content provider must have
>the latitude to design for those media, rather than continuing to shoehorn
>media into HTML. (Note that this does not imply my approval of such a
>requirement; just that in that event, the need is there.)
>
>-
>m
>
>
Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com

http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2001 21:07:08 GMT

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