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: Jim Ley <jim@e-media.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 17:30:57 -0000
Message-ID: <03be01c15cb1$a4246560$ca969dc3@emedia.co.uk>
To: "Anne Pemberton" <apembert45@yahoo.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
"Anne Pemberton":

> The image is visually associated on the page.

HTML is structural, you could at most associate an image with its parent
and sibling elements, there is no "visual association" on a page, because
there is no visual rendering of HTML, that's down to the User Agent, and
any _suggestions_ via stylesheets etc.

> Well, there are people who don't use images well, just
> as there are people who don't use words well. The
> point is not to discriminate, no matter how fancy you
> write the words, they are still a barrier.

Indeed, I have no argument against that, my argument is purely that it is
not possible to provide effective examples or more importantly
testability of this category so it can't be normative.  I also believe
it's not possible to produce a single set of illustrations which work
across the whole (English speaking even) world, which is another problem.
As this is also Alternative content, it should be provided in a manner
which the display of can be controlled by the user.  (what is the alt
text of these images - is it not the text which is already on the page?)
There needs to be some HTML mechanisms for providing multimedia
alternative content before this can be normative I feel.

> > I can't find this in the archives - do you have a
> > link?
>
> No, I don't save mail that far back. Can't imagine why
> it isn't archived.

I'm sure it is, my inefficient searching is obviously not turning it
up...

Jim.
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2001 13:32:36 GMT

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