W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: QED & Marshall McLuhan

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 09:10:11 -0400
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19990611091011.00bd76b0@apembert.pop.crosslink.net>
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
At 06:56 PM 6/10/1999 -0700, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>>You can access the information on the page.
>
>No, I can't.  I can't access the information in your images.
>I have no way of knowing, using Lynx, that one of those images
>reads "apembert designs" and another one reads "Anne Pemberton."
>
>That information is lost to me (I had to use Opera, and turn on
>images in order to find it out), and so your content is _not_
>accessible.
>
>Whether or not I could have _understood_ "apembert designs" and
>"Anne Pemberton" is a moot issue, since you didn't present me
>with that content from the start.  It was _denied to me_ because
>of my choice of browser, and for other people it would have been
>_denied to them_ because of their disability.

I agree the title box should be tagged. I didn't know then what I know now
about Publisher converting text boxes to graphics. It's easy to tag
graphics in Publisher unless it is a something that is converted to a
graphic when the program converts the page to html. Those, to be corrected,
have to be run through another program to add tags to the new graphics, and
I can also tag those spacers. It's a nuisance to do it because it has to be
re-done every time the page is updated before it can be put on the web. 

The above notwithstanding, the information in the title box isn't _denied_
at all, it is included -  given in the title of the page and in the rest of
the text. Isn't it? (or is my text unclear???) It's just available in an
additional form to folks who view it with the graphics on. I see this as an
"understanding" issue, which you say isn't to be accommodated. 

Perhaps these issues are at the core of our misunderstanding between
accommodation to which groups of disabled people. If the guidelines are to
be labeled as "for disabled people" and to be offered to be included as
required accommodations under the ADA, then there really shouldn't be a
choice made to which disabled people (who are already using the web) should
be accommodated. 

If it's an accessibility issue to choose to turn off the graphics, then
turning on the graphics is also an accessibility issue. But you can't turn
on what isn't there, and the guidelines as David listed them, would insure
that the graphics are indeed there for those who need and want them.
Without them, the information is _denied them because of their disability_. 

				Anne

















>
>>What is the problem????? <smile>!
>
>Gee, I don't know, Anne! <smile>
>
>My original conclusion is correct:  We are _not_ speaking the
>same language when we talk about designing an accessible page,
>if you can claim that a lack of ALT text on an image is a problem
>with comprehension rather than with accessibility of the 
>content.
>
>
>--
>Kynn Bartlett                                    mailto:kynn@hwg.org
>President, HTML Writers Guild                    http://www.hwg.org/
>AWARE Center Director                          http://aware.hwg.org/
>
>
Anne L. Pemberton
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Pav/Academy1
http://www.erols.com/stevepem/apembert
apembert@crosslink.net
Enabling Support Foundation
http://www.enabling.org
Received on Friday, 11 June 1999 10:40:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:44 GMT