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

Re: RE Checkpoint 3.4 again

From: Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo <emmanuelle@teleline.es>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 01:12:34 +0200
Message-ID: <005401c11adf$737ebf00$2f0e04d5@teleline.es>
To: "Joel Sanda" <joels@ecollege.com>, "'Anne Pemberton'" <apembert@erols.com>, "'Jo Miller'" <jo@bendingline.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi all,

I believe that the polarization in the discussion on the point 3.4 is due to
that not all understand the implied concepts in the same way.

For example, I have visited the page of Joel (www.eCollege.com) and I have
found that in it they are used the graphics profusely, to facilitate the
understanding of the textual content. It is possible that he is not aware of
it. A line is a graph, and in its pages these graphic elements are used to
guide and to help the user. There is not more than to see the menu of their
main page.

Therefore, it is possible that when one speaks of non-text content and they
put on as examples, images, sounds, video, etc. some understand that it is
demanding to use complex drawings or pictograms, that which is not
necessarily this way. The rhetorical complexity will depend on the necessity
of its use and, sometimes, the simplest element gets the objective better
that one complex.

The drawing that has made Charles to illustrate the point it is magnificent,
especially because it has been able to express, graphically, the case more
difficult of application of this rule. But to apply this rule won't
necessarily demand that each paragraph or each concept is expressed
graphically. What demands the rule is that the capacity multimedia of the
Web is used to facilitate the use and understanding from the contents to all
the possible visitors.

The multimedia elements (text, graphics, charts, sound, animation,
videotape, table, etc.) they are, each one of them, more or less appropriate
to express certain contents. For example, to express and to give to
understand data, the ideal thing is to use tables and better if they go
accompanied by charts. Evidently, the sound is the less appropriate element
to express great quantity of data. Rules exist on the use of the elements of
an application multimedia that, at least in Spain, they are studied in the
career of Communication.

Therefore, in my humble opinion, what we try to say with this rule is: use,
jointly, all the "media" that they are appropriate to express and to
facilitate the understanding of the content.

As for the " non-text " definition, I believe that it deserves to be edited
again because, at least in Spanish, a definition should not contain the
defined term.

Kind regards,
Emmanuelle

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel Sanda" <joels@ecollege.com>
To: "'Anne Pemberton'" <apembert@erols.com>; "'Jo Miller'"
<jo@bendingline.com>; <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 11:16 PM
Subject: RE: RE Checkpoint 3.4 again


> Anne -
>
> You are absolutely right about kids. My son is three. None of the
parenting
> books I dutifully read prior to his arrival into my life led me to believe
> words would be an obstacle. Of course, he's the smartest kid in the world
> <gin /> but doesn't care on bit about the words I read to him in the book.
> He's into sounds, images, and texture. He loves words like all kids, but a
> picture of a fire truck or the sound of a siren is all that is meaningful
to
> him right now.
>
> So: point taken well, and your logic is what led me to try and illustrate
> 3.4 the past two evenings and refer to your Holiday's page for guidance.
The
> logic of 3.4 is 100% right on. I'm excited about the prospect of how we
can
> use XML and XSLT to render content in ways that are meaningful to all
kinds
> of people.
>
> But I have tried bouncing this off several people: graphic designers, web
> developers, and content authors. Some at my work place, most friends at
> other companies or folks I've done work with the in the past. All had the
> same reaction: "yeah, that's cool, but I'm not gonna do it". Most seemed
> intimated by the requirement or felt it was overkill and would consume too
> many resources (time and money and bandwidth for the I.T. folks).
>
> I'm not sure 3.4 is appropriate for all web sites, or all content. We
can't
> swing it with the WCAG 2.0, so I am *very* uncomfortable including it. If
> this group can't make it work with the requirement specifying it, I cannot
> put my vote behind its inclusion.
>
> And if we continue the logic of the WCAG 2.0, and point 3.4, we could also
> argue - with a greater sense of urgency behind it - that to be truly
> accessible the site would be in English and Chinese, since there are more
> people who can read English and Chinese than can't read text and leave
with
> an understanding.
>
> This leads me to believe we may find more common ground and a solution
we're
> happier about if we opt for a list of reasons to implement this technique,
> as well as how to implement the technqiues. Is it appropriate to implement
> this on the WCAG 2.0? Maybe not - since all the supporting material and
the
> WCAG 2.0 are all in text and no one has the time to implement 3.4 on the
> content.
>
> Is it appropriate for an Internet Privacy Policy to implement this? You
bet
> - only attorney's enjoy reading those <grin />. Is it appropriate for
> content geared to younger audiences or audiences that can't read? 100%.
>
> Joel Sanda
> Product Manager
> -------------------------------------------------------www.eCollege.com
> eCollege
> joels@ecollege.com
> > p. 303.873.7400 x3021
> > f.  303.632.1721
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anne Pemberton [mailto:apembert@erols.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2001 2:56 PM
> To: Joel Sanda; 'Jo Miller'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: RE: RE Checkpoint 3.4 again
>
>
> Joel, Kynn, and others ....
>
>          Thanks very much for the comments on the holiday page. Yes, it is
> quite symbolic, but then it is created to be used mostly by non-readers
...
> I still have some illustrations (or symbols) to round up for some of the
> links before school starts ...  The holidays pages is one of the pages
that
> I use a lot of clip art to illustrate the links. I have learned that if I
> leave the links without illustration, the kids are less likely to use the
> link independently, tho they will use it when told to.
>
>          Joel, in primary school, illustrating is an skill kids are
> expected to come to school with. In Kindergarten it is a favorite way of
> asking a child to show s/he understood a story. Throughout education,
> students are expected to illustrate their written and oral work. They may
> do pictures instead of a written book report, or as a part of one. They
> create covers for reports that illustrate their topic. They include
> illustrations in their reports -- in the lowest grades they are drawing,
> perhaps pasted pictures, and by grad school they are all charts of data
> .... but illustrating one's work continues.  After schooling, as one
> settles down in a career, the need to illustrate doesn't go away. A
> co-worker needs to understand the work flow --- you draw a flow chart or
> something less ..... the head honchos want a demonstration of your idea or
> concept .... better have illustrations for them to look at while you're
> talking .... the need to illustrate is never far away.
>
>          Perhaps my optimism that web designers will jump at the
> opportunity to consider illustrations for their sites is due to my place
in
> education. It behooves me to stay as optimistic as possible ... You guys
> who expect a backlash from designers may indeed be right, since you have
> the closest contact with them.  But I wonder if some of you who teach
> designers would give it a try sometime and let me know how bad it crashes
> ....
>
>                                  Anne
>
> Anne Pemberton
> apembert@erols.com
>
> http://www.erols.com/stevepem
> http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
>
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2001 19:15:17 GMT

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