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

Re: Checkpoint 3.4 again

From: Marti McCuller <marti@agassa.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 18:07:15 -0400
Message-ID: <000c01c117b1$a9c82140$a9d6db3f@cais.net>
To: "Joe Clark" <joeclark@joeclark.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "Anne Pemberton" <apembert@erols.com>
It seems to me that we are asking the web to do more in this case for the
"learning-disabled" (or dyslexic etc) than in other cases.  Text equivalents
must still be translated to a usable form on the user/client end (audio,
Braille, etc.) In the case of Visually Impaired users we expect them to have
appropriate applications to do their part.  An alternate to "text' in the
form of sound is not needed because the software is available to make the
translation. Can't we reasonably expect the learning-disabled to provide
some of their own "translation"?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Anne Pemberton" <apembert@erols.com>
To: "Joe Clark" <joeclark@contenu.nu>; "Joe Clark" <joeclark@joeclark.org>;
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2001 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: Checkpoint 3.4 again

> Joe,
> No matter the arguments presented, text is an element on a page, no more,
> and no less. It needs an equivalent. Does the equivalent need to be a
> graphic? No, but a graphic is probably the easiest to do, other than a
> sound file of someone reading the text.  Animations and multimedia can
> be equivalents to text ....  Wendy has suggested that links could be
> illustrations, so a link could be the equivalent of a block of text if the
> link leads to something that illustrates the text ...
> If a graphic is an illustration for a passage of text illustrate the main
> concepts, or minor ones with unique importance, there is no need for an
> tag .... there would still be a need for a long description on many/most
> illustrations.
> The "textists" as you dub them, have made a wonderful contribution to
> accessibility, but the web is capable of so much more that can contribute
> to accessibility when you get away from the concept that Text is More
> ...  And if the "textists" concepts are what has made accessibility worth
> pursuing for web designers, how come there are so few alt tags and long
> descriptions out there on the web?
> Seriously, Joe, we can't draw an arbitrary line in the sand deciding which
> disabled people are actually accommodated by the guidelines. That will
> us a laughing stock ... Our guidelines already specify that we are
> considering the needs of the learning disabled and cognitively disabled.
> can't promise accommodations and accessibility, then not deliver because
> they happen not to dig text like you do ...
> Joe, do you think there is a better way to accommodate the learning and
> cognitively disabled? I'm open to suggestions, especially since Wendy
> always recommends patience and compromise to me when I get to soapboxing.
> <grin>
> Anne
Received on Saturday, 28 July 2001 18:05:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:38 UTC