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

Re: examples of a variety of sites that include illu

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001 23:36:48 -0400 (EDT)
To: Joe Clark <joeclark@qube.seeto.com>
cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0108022326020.8233-100000@tux.w3.org>
Physics sites are ones where it is clear that they benefit from
illustration, and where we can expect that illustration can be provided.

The point of trying to refine the success criteria is to have the requirement
expresed in a way that it can be met. If we write something that we can break
we are just wasting time - the goal is to get to a point where we have a
reasonably robust requirement that people can understand how to meet it.

Naturally there will be areas where it is difficult to provide any meaningful
illustration - and there are things about mathematics that it is just really
difficult for people to understand becaus they require a lot of intelligence
and knowledge. The point is that they do not necessarily require good reading
skills, which are not a measure of either of those tings, however often in
one's experience they seem to occur together.

As an historian, I have not come across very many history texts at all that
were designed to be even moderately accessible that didn't include
illustration. Those that didn't tended to be directed solely at
University-level readers, written in a style that only such people could be
expected to understand, often to explain something that I could easily
re-interpret for my friends and family including children. (this isn't theory
- I have taught history to primary school children, by re-presenting what was
written in dull and dusty tomes using language that makes sense, and
illustrations of various kinds).

Perhaps Socratic dialogue is harder. Let me present it as a small challenge,
since i have also found that done very successfully (albeit not yet online).



On Thu, 2 Aug 2001, Joe Clark wrote:

  Physics sites are actually not a good test case, where we define "test
  case" as something likely to break the proposed standard. I would look up
  philosophy, linguistics, and history papers.

Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI    fax: +1 617 258 5999
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2001 23:36:53 UTC

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