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 10:56:40 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: "Matt May" <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 05:36 PM 7/31/01 -0700, Matt May wrote:
>The 1.0 guidelines do no such thing. In the case of alt text and
>synchronized scripts, all that happens is that shortcomings of _technology_
>are overcome. WCAG 1 asks authors to use their eyes and ears to take down
>technical barriers to those who can't use their eyes or ears. All of WCAG 1,
>save 14.1 (clear and simple language), boils down to:
>1) use the technology appropriately; and
>2) where the technology can't make itself accessible, do it yourself.

         First of all the W3C is about removing barriers from users with 
disabilities. Not just those who cannot use their eyes and ears, but those 
who cannot use body parts as well, including the brain. Writing an alt tag 
is trivial, but writing a long description or a script whether synchronized 
or not, is not trivial. Your comment above seems to dismiss the possibility 
that authors will ever be "disabled" themselves, yet you wonder if the 
blind couldn't build accessible pages if they didn't illustrate them.

>WCAG 1 tells people what to do with their message, without necessarily
>changing its format. The current 3.4 requires a direct change in content
>itself, which is much more invasive and bound to be ignored, even where it
>is actually feasible (which my experience tells me is not often). I think
>WCAG 1 got it right.

If I thought you were right, I wouldn't be wasting all these precious 
summer hours tussling with these issues. Jakob Neilsen totally ignored 14.2 
.... as did others ..... that's why I'm here ...


Anne Pemberton

Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2001 11:06:42 UTC

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