W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2002

RE: 4.1 and satire

From: Lee Roberts <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 11:59:03 -0500
To: "john_slatin" <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>, "'jonathan chetwynd'" <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
Cc: "Web Content Guidelines" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NFBBJHFEOLAGEICMIMBPGEOOCFAA.leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>

I don't think that it would be able to conform.  However, the artistic value
would still be relevant.  I don't think it is our goal to say that poetry or
satire is an area that should or could conform, but we should not say that
it would be unacceptable to have it on a web site.  People do a lot of
studying on the subject of irony and satire while in school and possibly for
self-edification (although not my personal interests - if it's not
science-fiction forget it).

John's question holds a valid point and we should address it.  Should there
be a note that the particular page is not accessible due to the nature of
the message?  We could carry John's question to things more relevant to our
times.  The Onion provides satire all the time, would their site be
accessible or not?  I was certainly lost when they came out with the piece
on Dell closing - was it closing or not?

Modern Political Satirists certainly spoof on the antics of today's
politicians and politics.  Would their pages, articles, or even sites be
inaccessible with our standards?

Lee Roberts

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of john_slatin
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:45 AM
To: 'jonathan chetwynd'; john_slatin
Cc: Web Content Guidelines
Subject: RE: 4.1 and satire



Actually, Jonathan, there's a great deal of art that isn't accessible, and a
good deal of it is quite deliberately inaccessible-- the work of the High
Modernists in English and American poetry is a good example (T.S. Eliot, for
instance)  And some artists don't care a fig whether or not their work
sells.

I posed my query in all seriousness, though: is it possible for satire of
the sort I described to claim conformance to checkpoint 4.1 at any level?

John

John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Institute for Technology & Learning
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C, Mail code G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.ital.utexas.edu



-----Original Message-----
From: jonathan chetwynd [mailto:j.chetwynd@btinternet.com]
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:03 am
To: john_slatin
Cc: Web Content Guidelines
Subject: Re: 4.1 and satire


Our students* have almost no, or at least very little understanding of pun.
I understood it is a common misconception that some nationalities fail
to see the irony.
the joke is lost in the telling? doing rather than talking, gosh i bore
even myself on occassion.

another reason why triple AAA ranking should require that its meaning is
understood by all.
AA is quite enough for any drier intellect, and really A should suffice.

Art is accessible, it has to sell.

jonathan chetwynd

with severe learning difficulties
Received on Friday, 7 June 2002 12:59:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:19 GMT