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

RE: 4.1

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:20:07 -0500
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <001501c2122d$0fd46040$41d86880@laptop600>

Hi Jonathan,

Interesting.

Do you have some specific wording suggestions to consider?

Gregg

------------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Ind Engr - Biomed - Trace,  Univ of Wis
gv@trace.wisc.edu

 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf
> Of jonathan chetwynd
> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 3:15 AM
> To: Charles McCathieNevile
> Cc: Chris O'Kennon; ''Lee Roberts ' '; ''w3c-wai-gl@w3.org ' '
> Subject: Re: 4.1
> 
> 
> Unfortunately I still feel that whilst we are in agreement on some
> aspects of a verbal or textual exposition of what is required, very
> little effort is being put into equivalence. Theatre, music, poetry
and
> oratory have a very ancient heritage, one the web is not finding easy
to
> emulate.
> 
> When a piece of text produces a coherent audio output, that is
> wonderful. however we are a long way from producing multi-media
> equivalence, mechanically. Until that remote time, this means both
> creating dramatic, pictorial, photographic and or symbolic
> representations of complex concepts; and identifying where possible
> generalizations that can be incorporated into guidelines*.
> 
> It is essential that at this early stage we extract what is do-able.
> There is no sense in defining this as the task though.
> 
> However, it is also necessary to plot a route to the far more remote,
> and this is what I feel has been avoided over the past 4 years.
> Part of this plotting, requires dead-reckoning, being prepared to
fail,
> and attempting the apparently impossible, ie in the case of w3/wai a
> graphical representation of some aspects of the guidelines.
> Fortunately, if the ecmascript techniques document is developed, this
> will almost certainly produce some graphical examples.
> 
> It also seems to me that the whole of Guideline 4.-Comprehension
leaves
> far too much  responsibility in the hands of authors.
> Users are in a far better position to qualify acceptibility, and
should
> be involved in the process. if members of a family enjoy the online
> family album, surely that is a better guide than the authors+w3
> guidelines. We only can try our best but users ultimately are our
guide,
> and this needs to be made explicit.
> 
> thanks
> 
> jonathan
> 
> I do have to say that as usual, I have not spent as much time as I
would
> like actually studying the available reources at w3c/wai
> 
> 
> *Merely stating that some people prefer one format is not that
helpful.
> 
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2002 12:21:01 GMT

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