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

Re: Clear and simple writing

From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 22:00:39 -0800
To: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>, WAI GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <00e601c17576$82e9ddc0$d790003e@dev1>
I am sorry, when did I say they should be permanently shown?

Personally I love alternate renderings, and I agree that often one groups
needs will interfere with another (see previous email -when user groups
needs conflict)

I did not know that this was a case in point. but now I do. Thanks.

Just because that is true, There is  no need not to say that illustrations
will help  many cognitive disabilities  (at least 12 million Americans).

Illustrations help millions of people gain accessorily to content.

Using Ruby is one way for web authors to provide alterative within a single
site, but with XML alterative renderings get better and easier.

Yes we need more practical techniques. I am happy to acknowledge that.
But that does not implied that I should not say what I said

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Ley" <jim@jibbering.com>
To: "Lisa Seeman" <seeman@netvision.net.il>; "WAI GL" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2001 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: Clear and simple writing


> "Lisa Seeman":
> > Firstly I would be surprised if I misunderstood Will  - Will your
> comments
> > please. - maybe better not.
> >
> > Secondly you do not need  alternate content. I do not know who is
> distracted
> > by non animated, relevant, illustrative pictures.
>
> I am, I have distinct problems with illustrations, they make content
> (which can be explained clearly in text) difficult to understand, at the
> same time I appreciate images so cannot disable all images, cartoon like
> "descriptive" images that are all I see are especially distractive. (I
> have a similar problem with music, I can only understand words..)
>
>
> >. It does not distract from
> > text but illustrates it. If text works for you, great ignore the
> > illustrations.
>
> They're distracting, I'm not saying don't include them, but I'd like them
> to be included in a manner which leaves the content accessible to me
> (especially as I'm more of the audience for WCAG guidelines for example
> than the cognitively disabled.)
>
> > Accessibility does not mean removing or minimizing pictorial content.
>
> Nope, of course not, it means providing multiple alternative
> representations for content so that different groups with differing needs
> can access the content, that means whilst pictorial content works well for
> some it distracts some - just like animations work well for some (maximise
> understanding) are a limitation for others, you can't say that having
> images always shown yet are nothing but alternate content to the text -
> remember we don't insist images alternate text content be permanently
> shown, so why do you say that text's alternate content is permanently
> shown - why are one group made special by having their needs have a
> negative impact on anothers group?
>
> > However If I am wrong on that, feel free to actually read Charles email
> from
> > a few hours ago on what we did in Melbourne and you will see a nice
> example
> > of a code snippet of Ruby used for just these type of problems.
>
> Ruby can be used to hide images - in which user agents, can you describe
> exactly how a user agent should control this (I'm happy to author a user
> agent to do it, I do need though there to be some mechanism recommended
> that users can use for providing alternate non text content for text.)
>
> Jim.
>
>
Received on Saturday, 24 November 2001 15:03:08 GMT

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