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

RE: Mail order catalogues was Re: Cognition Simulation

From: Charles F. Munat <chas@munat.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 23:15:34 -0700
To: "WAI GL" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <LHEGJAOEDCOFFBGFAPKBOEKFCJAA.chas@munat.com>
Anne:
> I'm not sure that judicious use of graphics will accommodate the
> folks who
> need it so much as a comprehensive use of graphics to enhance
> comprehensibility on we pages ....

I think that maybe the problem here is confusion about the meaning of the
word "judicious." According to my dictionary, it means "Having, applying, or
showing sound judgment; wise and careful." [Webster's New World, 2nd College
Edition]

Nowhere in sound judgment, wise, or careful is any limit on quantity
implied.

> If you don't have the technology, you just get a message
> it isn't
> there. If the guidelines are followed, you will have a text
> alternative if
> it doesn't work. So access is denied to no one with older
> technology .....

If text is not enough for users with cognitive disabilities, how can it be
enough for poor users? Aren't there any poor users with cognitive
disabilities? Aren't there any users in Third World countries who have
cognitive disabilities? You keep avoiding these questions, Anne. Please
answer them directly. How are users with cognitive disabilities and older,
legacy equipment with slow connections able to comprehend Web pages if they
must turn their graphics off? How can lack of graphics be an impediment to
First World users with cognitive disabilities but not to Third World users
with cognitive disabilities?

You say that wise, careful use of graphics will deprive some users of
access. You do not explain how or why. Then you refuse to acknowledge that
bandwidth-intensive content can deprive others of content, or you dismiss
their concerns as inconsequential. Why are some groups of people more
important than others in your view? Why are the rights of cognitively
disabled people in First World countries *more important* than the rights of
cognitively disabled people in Third World countries? I'm really confused
here.

The reason this discussion has gone round and round on this list is because
it has never reached completion. In order to achieve closure, we must get
everything clear and out in the open. So I would very much appreciate clear,
concise, direct replies to the questions I asked in the previous two
paragraphs.

I look forward to reading your reply.

Chas. Munat
Received on Thursday, 30 August 2001 02:54:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:12 GMT