W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2004

RE: simple language testable thing

From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 20:00:26 -0500 (EST)
To: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSO.4.53.0402081953430.15346@mail.veldt.ca>

> Adding a title (containing a translation) to the span (that is already
> required by 3.1) is not restricting free speech

It's *forced speech*, Lisa. Now, so is an alt text, but in that case we
are not talking about translation, which is a very large bridge to cross.

Essentially, once we start requiring translations, *there is no
theoretical limit*. A Ukrainian-speaker could demand Ukrainian
translations of your Hebrew pages, Lisa, lest they otherwise be
"inaccessible."

Unilingualism is not a disability. A particular detail of unilingualism--
that the unilingual person, disabled or not, cannot read another script--
is not so important that it overpowers the issue of required translation.

Further: And aren't you *assuming* the author knows the translation? And
that the adaptive technology can even render a title attribute in what you
consider to be the base character set?

> and will help people
> with disabilities access the material on the web.

If that were the only criterion, every draconian or cockamamie idea anyone
ever came up with would become part of WCAG 2.0. Though I still hold out
hope that will not actually have been true of WCAG 2.0.

> I fail to see why this is controversial.

Wilfully so, I suspect.

> > -----Original Message-----

Top-posting is an accessibility issue, Lisa.

--

  Joe Clark  |  joeclark@joeclark.org
  Author, _Building Accessible Websites_
  <http://joeclark.org/access/> | <http://joeclark.org/book/>
Received on Sunday, 8 February 2004 19:56:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:55 UTC