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

Re: Proposed edit to note -- to avoid conflict with criteria

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 18:04:45 -0400 (EDT)
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
cc: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "GLWAI Guidelines WG (GL - WAI Guidelines WG)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0108121757110.17453-100000@tux.w3.org>
Summary: Yes, that information can be presented non-visually. It is largely a
resource question, not one about how to make it accessible.

I am hoping, as far as we are able, to eliminate these vague "where possible"
type statments by providing more explanation of what things are possible (or
not), and examples or good reasons why not. This allows people to extrapolate
to their own situation with a higher degree of reliability.


Presumably it is possible to decribe the scene. Presumably it is even
possible to split the description into things that are more or less fixed
(such as the buildings), things that change slowly (in general the weather,
the lighting), and things that are ephemeral, in such degrees that it is
feasible to get a sense of what is going on. Further, some of these things
must be automatable (weather, light, finding out when parked cars leave...)
to some extent.

Whether or not you are going to go to that trouble isn't a measure of whether
it is possible. I realise that not all content will be made accessible just
becuase we would like it to be so, and that there are real resource
constraints acting in varous situations. But unless we can determine how to
deal with those (and i have argued before that this is outside the scope of
the group) then we should concentrate on the technical requirements and leave
implementation policy to people ho are working in the area, providing them
with as much useful information as we can.



On Sun, 12 Aug 2001, Kynn Bartlett wrote:

  At 02:16 PM 8/12/2001, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
  >When is it not possible to provide a text equivalent? Naturally it can be
  >difficult in a variety of cases, but do we have any real guidance on the
  >topic? Otherwise this becomes more or less non-verifiable.

  What about example I posted recently of a webcam pointed at a city
  street?  There's no real way to make that information available to
  a non-visual audience...or is there?


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 Sunday, 12 August 2001 18:04:47 UTC

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