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

Re: More on 3.4

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2001 08:53:15 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20010801083919.009f03a0@pop.erols.com>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, Matt May <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Matt,

         Not all blind folks eschew graphics on their sites. The EASI site 
was made and is maintained by two blind guys, yet these guys were 
thoughtful enough of graphical folks to add graphics to their site. See: 
http://www.rit.edu/~easi and 
especially  http://www.rit.edu/~easi/ak12/k12.htm for a nice example of how 
folks who can no longer see choose to make their site more appealing and 
attractive. No, they did not "illustrate" in the sense we are discussing 
here, but included graphics as "eye candy" ....  Moving these two guys 
towards illustrating instead of just decorating is a matter of telling them 
it's good for the LD kids.

                                         Anne

At 11:30 PM 7/31/01 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Jul 2001, Matt May wrote:
MM
>   Which introduces another problem that hasn't as yet been asked: if 
> graphical
>   representations are required in a document to make them "accessible", does
>   that not preclude nearly every author who is blind from creating accessible
>   documents?
>
>CMN
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2001 08:57:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:11 GMT