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

Proposal: checkpoint 3.4

From: Joe Clark <joeclark@contenu.nu>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 19:26:22 -0400
Message-Id: <a0510031ab78b9be440f9@[]>
To: w3c-wai-gl@W3.org
>Here are the things that I have merged:
>1. WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 14.2 Supplement text with graphic or auditory
>presentations where they will facilitate comprehension of the page.
>[Priority 3]

Let's rewrite that to "facilitate comprehension."

>>Supplement text with graphic, audio, or audiovisual presentations 
>>when they will make it easier to understand the text.

We should explicitly permit videoclips, and the goal is to make the 
text being adapted understandable, not the whole page.

>3.4 Utilise content in a wide range of modalities where possible to assist
>the users of your content.

Boy, does that ever need to be rewritten in English.

>>To make your content easier to understand, use a wide range of 
>>modes of expression.

Moving right along:

>For any description of a process or of relationships, provide a graphic
>For any page which has a 'concrete thing' as a primary topic, provide a
>graphic illustration of that thing.
>For a page that deals with an organisation or concept for which there is a
>well known symbol, include that symbol on the page.

These are all pretty awful. Apart from *requiring* illustrations 
again, the suggested categories are so legalistically defined they 
are unintentionally funny.

Also, I rather doubt you want antifascist groups in Germany to be 
*required* to add swastikas to their page, in any form at all. (Don't 
be cute and say "They can show it with a bar dexter through it.") Nor 
should a group protesting against sulfur content in gasoline be 
forced to show an Esso logo. Give us a break, kids.

>Here's my proposal. Note again, that I am trying to find something that
>Anne agrees with and then we can see where everyone else disagrees (but
>don't feel obliged to disagree, you are more than welcome to agree. <grin/>).

I was not aware that any individual party working on WCAG 2.0 had a 
veto. That is essentially what you are saying. Anne's extremist views 
on requiring illustrations and other "non-text" content for "text 
elements" are very poorly supported. In fact, there might not be 
anyone else on the planet who supports everything she does. Why are 
we rejigging all the rules of consultation just to please Anne? She 
is no more important than any other contributor to this process (and 
I do mean any).
         Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
         Accessibility articles, resources, and critiques:
Received on Monday, 30 July 2001 19:27:09 UTC

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