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

RE: If we say some sites cannot conform.

From: john_slatin <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 14:29:47 -0500
Message-ID: <6AC4E20EED49D411941400D0B77E52F0074B9202@forum.cc.utexas.edu>
To: "'GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU'" <GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU>, "'Lee Roberts'" <leeroberts@roserockdesign.com>, john_slatin <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>, "'jonathan chetwynd'" <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
Cc: "'Web Content Guidelines'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

I think it *should* be possible for poetry and other art forms to conform to
WCAG.  By this I mean that the guidelines shouldn't be written in such a way
as to put all artistic expression beyond the pale of accessibility.

It should then be up to poets and artists to decide whether they wish to aim
for conformance or not.

Back in the Fall the online journal I edit published an issue about the new
electronic poetry.  We had invited poets to submit new work for
consideration, and we pointed out that our editorial policy requires WCAG
(we don't specify a level) conformance.  Several people objected to this
constraint as a kind of unwarranted intrusion on artistic freedom.  My
response to that was that our journal (Currents) isn't by any means the only
outlet for e-poetry, and that poets who didn't want to play with WCAG didn't
have to; they'd just have to go elsewhere, because I wasn't going to put my
name on something I couldn't possibly have read (whatever "read" might mean
under these circumstances).

Stating what's required in order to make a conformance claim doesn't
obligate anyone to make such a claim (if they're in a position where
conformance is voluntary).  All it says is what they have to do to ground
such a claim if they *do* make it.

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: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:GV@TRACE.WISC.EDU] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 12:46 pm
To: 'Lee Roberts'; 'john_slatin'; 'jonathan chetwynd'
Cc: 'Web Content Guidelines'
Subject: If we say some sites cannot conform.


I need clarification

Are you saying that we would create guidelines that would preclude museums
and libraries from conforming at any level?

If so then we run the risk of having people walk away from them and make
their own.

I don't think that we should create guidelines that are not achievable by
basically everyone -- or these guidelines will not take precedence. Others
will need to be written for general applicability and we will have
fragmentation.

This is not an easy topic, but we need to address it carefully.

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 Lee Roberts
> Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 11:59 AM
> To: john_slatin; 'jonathan chetwynd'
> Cc: Web Content Guidelines
> Subject: RE: 4.1 and satire
> 
> 
> 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 Wednesday, 12 June 2002 15:29:55 GMT

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