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

Re: definition of accessible: text is convenient

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 06:55:01 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: "Jonathan Chetwynd" <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>, <wai-tech-comments@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
At 01:53 PM 9/15/01 +0100, Jonathan Chetwynd wrote:
>I don't agree with what al has to say on this.*

  - but will fight to the death for his right to say it?

I am reminded of editorials written lamenting the disappearance of the old 
virtues contained in well-formed hand-written documents - but written by a 
person with an illegible hand using a word processor! The alt= "airplanes 
flying through Uncle Sam's legs" works for this audience at least as well 
as would the laboriously constructed political cartoon. And it could be 
readily repurposed with analogies about the underpinnings of the giant, etc.

In fact that's what Jonathan did in lieu of making a drawing which would 
have required equal explanation.

MOST graphics, in the context of the audience for our work, demand 
interpretation to a greater extent than much of our text. Else why don't we 
use hieroglyphics?

All of which is an over-wordy say of siding with Al in maintaining that 
"The conventional .gif and .jpg  representations used for images on the Web 
are not compatible with widely-deployed repurposing technology that does a 
reasonable job of recreating intelligibility the way that UniCode text is." 
[full stop]

If that's what you  disagree with, I think you need to re-examine your 

Received on Saturday, 15 September 2001 09:52:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:39 UTC