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

sigint-humint was Re: definition of accessible: text is convenient

From: Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 17:44:26 +0100
Message-ID: <004701c13e05$ae8fc1e0$0f8e7bd5@btopenworld.com>
To: "William Loughborough" <love26@gorge.net>, <wai-tech-comments@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>, "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
To restate the 3 editorial points that I made, not just the one....

3*
Media like languages are alternatives, the title of a film tells me
something about the film, but not a lot. Would you prefer to see the film or
read the title?
For those people that cannot see, the answer is perhaps clearer, though if
they can hear, they might possibly prefer to listen, and not just have a
machine read a text.
Automated artificial voices are not generally preferred by many, though
plenty like to listen to the professional voices of those they have never
met.
I don't feel that teletext is wildly successful, and if you asked the
average punter to watch 'friends' in any xml repurposed form I think you'd
have a problem.
If you forced a nation to, you just might have a riot. All I am suggesting
is that one could be more positive and say for instance:

whereas non-textual content is less easily repurposed (by machines) at the
present time.

repurposing has a use, but no amount of xml will improve -on offering
alternatives-.
That is my case, they are alternatives and repurposing is only one tool in
the kit bag.


1>A document is accessible if it can be equally understood by its targeted
audience regardless of the device used to access it.

I don't think this makes sense, It is brief, but we've had problems defining
accessibility, and this doesn't fit.


2>>This semantics knowledge can be provided through human readable
documentation of course, but having machine readable assertions of semantics
that can then be used to present the document in various media is paramount
for pervasive access (that is, you don't need a programmer, you just need a
program). Enabling others to map from your language to existing ones, or
vice versa, is a useful accessibility feature.

What efforts are being made to encourage semantic content of images to be
exported?
is it paramount?
pervasive access often means providing a variety of media alternatives.

Hope this doesn't all seem to contrary, but whilst recognising that tags
normally contain text, I do feel that much is being attempted for the
presentation of text, and little for the (cultural) dynamics of images, and
all in the name of accessibility.
No amount of text presentation will improve accessibility for people locked
into a visual world.

*3>Textual alternatives, for instance, can be repurposed
for many different output devices, whereas non-textual content is often
confined to a certain set of devices

jonathan chetwynd
IT teacher (LDD)
j.chetwynd@btinternet.com
http://www.peepo.com         "The first and still the best picture directory
on the web"
Received on Saturday, 15 September 2001 13:10:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:13 GMT