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

Re: First Stab at Set of Principles for 'Minimum Conformance'

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 07:07:19 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20011024065924.00a3aec0@pop.erols.com>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Jim,

         You test for illustrations the same way you test for alt text.... 
You can only test that it is there, not whether or not it is adequate.

         As for the ease of illustrating, it is really no harder than 
writing alt text or long descriptions, or scripts that accompany 
multi-media. In fact it is much easier than the last.

         Last time the argument of illustration content came up, back in 
the spring if I remember right, Wendy took the "obtuse subjects", searched, 
and found numerous sites illustrating these subjects.

                                                 Anne

At 10:51 AM 10/24/01 +0000, Jim Ley wrote:

>"Anne Pemberton":
> > No minimum conformance will be acceptable without inclusion of the
>needs of
> > the cognitively and reading disabled population. It makes no difference
> > whether a blind person is faced with a page of graphics without alt
>text or
> > a reading disabled person is faced with a page of text without
> > illustrations, they are equally inaccessible to the respective users.
> > Either situation presents as "no access" to the user.
>
> > >6. The Guideline must be easy to implement
> > >
> > >7. The Guideline must be easily verifiable (this is
> > >part of the Draft Requirements)
>
>Such requirements would generally fail these rquirements, so much
>material is certainly not easy to illustrate, and how do you propose to
>test for it?
>
>Jim

Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com

http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2001 07:09:23 GMT

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