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

Re: Proposal: checkpoint 3.4

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 12:11:29 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Joe Clark <joeclark@contenu.nu>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Hi Joe,

         It's taken two years of discussion to bring the good folks here, 
some from where you are now, to the point where we are approaching consensus.

         Just spent some time on your website, looking at your work. I am 
puzzled by your adherence to a "textist" view of the web, when your work is 
with making graphics and multi-media available to more people. Why do you 
object to saying that graphics and multimedia are necessary? It could 
provide more work for you to do .... (tho indeed, some of the work may go 
to those who _can_ be taken out in public <grin> ---read the story of your 
snafu with the station).

         There is a lot of work ahead developing the techniques that need 
to be used to maximize graphics and multi-media. You seem like you could 
contribute from your work background.


PS: I noticed that you, or whoever wrote the long descriptions for the bike 
pictures is no better than I am at ferreting out the details. If a long 
description is no more than a sentence, why not just put it in the alt text 
.... How old are those boys in the pictures anyway?

At 07:26 PM 7/30/01 -0400, Joe Clark wrote:
>>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 
>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:
>         <http://joeclark.org/access/>

Anne Pemberton

Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2001 12:16:00 UTC

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