W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 1998

Re: The visual Web vs. seamless accessibility (was Re: RIT - Javascript)

From: Kathy Seven Williams <kseven@utah-inter.net>
Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 18:24:02 -0600
Message-Id: <3.0.4.32.19980504182402.00872d60@utah-inter.net>
To: "R. Dolloff" <averil@concentric.net>, Liam Quinn <liam@htmlhelp.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
 At 04:01 PM 5/4/98 -0500, R. Dolloff wrote:
>Liam Quinn wrote:
>
>>As an author, my goal is to provide Web pages so that each user feels that
>>the page is designed specifically for her, regardless of her abilities and
>>browsing environment at the time.  If you were designing a page
>>specifically for an aural browser, you wouldn't include an image.  For this
>>reason, I wouldn't want an aural user to hear ALT text like "[Snowflake]"
>>or "XYZ Company Logo".
>>When we try to tell the aural user that "There's an image here", we're
>>saying that "This Web page is visual--it isn't made for you or your
>>browsing environment."  I want to convince the aural user, and every
otther >>user, that the page is designed specifically for her.  This is true
>>accessibility and it's seamless.

I'm sorry but i disagree that this is true accessibility or that it is
seamless. The world is not black and white. there are shades of everycolor.
In discussions of Braille use it is generally recognized that only a
relatively small percentage of blind people are Braille users. When talking
about degree of visual perception we can talk about the small number of
those who are totally blind vs those with usable light perception and
degrees of Low Vision. But when we talk about access to the Internet you've
gotta hear it or see it, but you don't get to do both. I want to do both. 

I hate being forced to go to a text only version of a web site just so I
can avoid Java buttons and be able to navigate. I hate being shut away from
the visual appearance of the page even though what I am seeing isn't the
whole picture in all its detail and glorious color. I resent being shoved
off to the text only interpretation where it is then determined that since
I'm using text only I certainly have no interest in the graphics and
therefore I am told by an alt tag that an image is "A PICTURE," "logo,"
"image," or some other totally non-informative description. I want to have
the option to decide what is worth working to see. If I choose to look at
something, since I was forced away from seeing it inthe first place by
having to move to the text page just to navigate, I at least want to be
able to right click on the image and display it if i choose to press nose
to screen with a magnifying glass or use a screen enlarger to zoom in and
look at the picture. If I don't know what's there to look at, how can I
decide whether or not it's worth my effort?  

I really don't choose to be totally blind just because I am legally blind.
I  want access to all I can see as well as all I cannot see.




"While they were saying among themselves it cannot be done, it was done."
Helen Keller

K7 (Kathy Seven Williams)
kseven@utah-inter.net
http://home.utah-inter.net/kseven/
Received on Monday, 4 May 1998 20:26:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:39 GMT