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

RE: Consensus Items on User, User, and Author Conflicts

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 06:00:35 -0400 (EDT)
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
cc: "GLWAI Guidelines WG (GL - WAI Guidelines WG)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0110080558390.6211-100000@tux.w3.org>
I am saying that in the scenario outlined below the test is not accessible.
Anything that tests visual reconition relies on functionality that is not
avalable to people regardless of disability. So it would fail any conformance
scheme I can imagine. Which is not a big problem - it is not designed to be
accessible, it is designed to test visual recognition.

Chaals

On Sun, 7 Oct 2001, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

  2) Regarding  G-3
  Can you give examples of something that fits what you describe.   I
  can't figure out exactly what you have in mind.

  Here is an example of what the group was thinking.
  - A person posts a picture of the Mona Lisa to show what great art looks
  like and as an example of art by that artist.    There is no way that he
  can make the Mona Lisa accessible to users without sight.   But he can
  provide alt text so that the person knows what picture is displayed,
  and he could provide a bit of text to explain what he thinks the sighted
  person should note from the picture.

  - now if this is a test -- then all he would provide was the name of the
  picture.... not what the answer to the question is.

  Are you saying that for specific things like 'tests' we should have an
  exception which is clearly laid out and delineated in the guidelines?
  Or that we should have an general exception where the author decides
  when they should be excepted?  Or something else?
Received on Monday, 8 October 2001 06:00:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:16 GMT