RE: REF 1.1a - Add definition to 1.1 for ability to be expressed in words

We've identified 2 potential problems with 1.1, and the phrase "that can be
expressed in words": 

1. with the phrase as it is, it's a loophole that anyone can get around.
2. without some limiting phrase, it may appear to be an unattainable goal,
causing people to give up and do nothing.

It may be good to have some conditional statement in 1.1, but I think we've
chosen the wrong focus for that statement. I think that the limiting factor
is the author's INTENT AND FUNCTION for the non-text content, rather than
the author's ability to express it in words. 

Let's take the specific example of music again:

<quote>... (a score does not recreate a performance). </quote> 

My response:

The ability to recreate a musical performance from the score depends on your
musical training. Having worked with professional musicians, I can say that
many of them can indeed recreate the musical performance in their head
simply by seeing the score.

If the musical score were marked up in MusicML or some other markup
language, this would be a adequate for some audiences. Taking into account
the expertise of the audience, this would constitute an effective text
equivalent. 

I've even known deaf musicians who were able to read music superbly. Their
internal perception of music is surely much different than mine, since I can
hear, but the score does commuicate the music to them in a way that they can
understand within their physical limitations. For these deaf musicians, as
for the hearing musicians, the score would be an adequate textual
representation.

For audiences who have not had musical training, the score will not be
adequate, I agree, BUT, I think that the important point is to look at the
author's intention. Unless the author is simply playing music for the
listener's enjoyment (e.g. an online radio station), the author usually has
a specific purpose for including the music in the Web content. For example,
a music history professor would post different types of music to point out
the differences in their style. Having taken a music history class, I know
that the differences can be described in words, because our textbook did
just that.

In the case of online radio, the author's intention is to play music for
people to hear.  The author does not intend to offer any interpretation, to
make any comparison, or to make any point at all, really. The music is there
for listening enjoyment and nothing more. This is the limitation. I think
that it would be ridiculous for us to require the author to provide a
detailed musicological analysis of every song played on the radio, but not
on the basis that it is impossible, rather on the basis that it does not
suit the author's intention.

Another example: If the music is just in the background, with no direct
relationship to the author's purpose, I would think that no textual
equivalent would be required. It would be analagous to a null alt attribute
(alt=""). The absence of a text equivalent is consistent with the author's
intention in this case.

*MY CONCLUSION is that the limiting factor is INTENT and PURPOSE, not the
impossibility of describing something in text. *

Paul Bohman
Technology Coordinator
WebAIM (Web Accessibility in Mind)
www.webaim.org
Center for Persons with Disabilities
www.cpd.usu.edu
Utah State University
www.usu.edu

Received on Friday, 11 July 2003 12:45:58 UTC