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

Nicely put, Paul.  Thank you.

John

John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Institute for Technology & Learning
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station 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: Paul Bohman [mailto:paulb@cpd2.usu.edu] 
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 11:46 am
To: gv@trace.wisc.edu; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: 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 14:31:41 UTC