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

Re: 3.7 in 1?

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 13:15:40 -0500
Message-Id: <200101031810.NAA347166@smtp2.mail.iamworld.net>
To: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 07:01 AM 2001-01-03 -0800, Anne Pemberton wrote:
>Al,
>
> Text cannot be "more equal" in the old "Animal Farm" sense and still meet
>the needs of the non-text people. 
>

AG:: to be perfectly clear, there are some people whose needs text does not
meet, period.

> No matter how many times we point to this little piece of the document or
>that, the overwhelming sense of the guidelines is "more than equal" status
>of text. So much so, that the 508 guidelines don't even suggest that the
>accessibility features they proscribe are useful outside of the blind
>community. 

AG:: 

In my understanding of the reasoning, what text is 'more' of is "more readily
achievable."  That is to say, there is technology that goes from natural
language text to a variety of alternative presentations.  And "how would you
say it on the phone?" is a question that the author is expected to be able to
answer readily.

The first-ness of text has nothing to do with the merit of the repairs it
achieves.  It is first in line among quick fixes.  It is the approach where we
have the greatest faith that we can make a simple statement, authors can
implement what we said, and it will by and large work as intended by our
statement.  It is our inability to write such cogent guidance for other
approaches that leaves text standing first.  Not because it serves customers
who are first.  No way.

Implementability is not a new factor in the deliberations, but we do need
to go
back and look at how we are handling it.  One cannot really explain WCAG 1.0
without it.  To come to a better synthesis, we need to get it out on the table
and how we incorporate it understood.

Al

> Anne
> 
>
>At 11:25 PM 1/2/01 -0500, Al Gilman wrote:
>>Somehow we have to communicate both a first-among-equals status for text
>>without going to Lombardiesque excess.  Yes, today, text is the most
>important
>>thing; but definitely not the only thing.  Because yes, there are people for
>>whom it is the _last_ thing they need.
>>
>>Al
>
>Anne L. Pemberton
><http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Pav/Academy1>http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Pav/Academy1
><http://www.erols.com/stevepem/Homeschooling>http://www.erols.com/stevepem
/Homeschooling
>apembert@crosslink.net
>Enabling Support Foundation
><http://www.enabling.org/>http://www.enabling.org
>  
Received on Wednesday, 3 January 2001 13:10:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:09 GMT