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

Re: Problems with OTACS-2

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 10:16:07 -0500
Message-Id: <200110281515.KAA752531@smtp2.mail.iamworld.net>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 09:21 PM 2001-10-27 , Anne Pemberton wrote:
>At 01:36 AM 10/28/01 +0100, Jim Ley wrote:
>>My conclusion is, plug-ins whether free or not can never be required for
>>all groups, _but_ users with more specific needs should make best effort
>>to use appropriate UA's and these include plug-ins.  So for example if in
>>3.4, the site author provides images in SVG because they can generate that
>>from their content, then it's not unreasonable to expect the user to
>>provide the means to view it.  Cost shouldn't come into it, reasonableness
>>should (of which cost is part of.)
>
>The user groups who is expected to be accommodated by 3.4 are those with 
>cognitive, reading, and learning disabilities. They have no need to prefer 
>SVG over JPG, GIF, etc Rastor Images, unless they are also Visually 
>Impaired .... therefore, requiring SVG for 3.4 is impractical ... it has no 
>purpose in the intended benefactor group, although it may have benefits to 
>peripheral groups ...
>

AG::  I think I have heard a pretty consistent message from the group saying

a) Yes, we need illustrations to protect this group, but
b) No, you can't say "this illustration is _for the use of_ this group"
without
having coverage complying with 1.1 for other users.

The illustration is required for the satisfaction of 3.4, but is not
exclusively for the purpose of satisfying 3.4.  Data is data is data.  Content
is content is content. [see PS]

The idea is not that we require SVG of authors.  But we hint that authors can
satisfy 3.4 and 1.1 in one object without parallel files for GIF and
description if they use SVG in accordance with the SVG accessibility note.

What is being debated here IIRC is: suppose the author does use SVG -- is this
placing an unreasonable burden on the users?  Is modifying the browser to
process SVG illustrations a reasonable expectation on users, or is this an
unreasonable expectation for certain groups of people with disabilities and we
need an alternative approach for them?

If there is a group for whom getting and installing the SVG plug-in is an
unreasonable burden, that is a valid argument to say that SVG alone is not an
omnibus solution.  One possible resolution of this would be to structure the
technique so the OBJECT tag that invokes the SVG should be backed with a
GIF of
the same image.  This way the high-cognitive, low-vision user can get the SVG
with the in-the-image verbal annotations and the user who cannot figure out
the
SVG plug-in installation can still get the picture.

Can we break the usage scenario down and look at some of these "where the
rubber hits the road" make-or-break points when we don't instantly agree on
the
high-level statements?

Al

PS:  One of the virtues of illustration is that it does free the author to use
more of their rhetorical ammunition.  The cliche is that you draw on the right
side of your brain for a change.  So the way you present the story in visuals
is frequently different from how you present the story in a narrative, unless
the narrative is explicitly derived from the visuals or vice versa.  I
discovered in describing the use of a typical advertising theme image on the
"accessible banking" site of Bank of America that it does help to write a
semantic-pragmatic literal description of what is there and a deeper
description of the moral of the piece, the message you are intended to derive
from what is presented.  Reading both gives more understanding than reading
either.  The diversity of rhetoric introduced by the imagery in the
illustration is valuable, even when carried over to the text medium _as a
diversity of texts describing the same thing from different perspectives_.

Reference::

 <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-tech-comments/2001Aug/0001.html>h
ttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-tech-comments/2001Aug/0001.html



>Further, as it is presently, downloading an SVG reader does not result in 
>the intended benefits. It's still vaporware, and I've heard it said it's 5 
>years away from reality .... that is far past the scope of WCAG 2.0 ....
>
>                                         Anne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>Jim.
>
>Anne Pemberton
>apembert@erols.com
>
><http://www.erols.com/stevepem>http://www.erols.com/stevepem
><http://www.geocities.com/apembert45>http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
>  
Received on Sunday, 28 October 2001 10:15:23 GMT

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