W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2000

RE: How to convince businesses to be accessible...

From: Kelly Ford <kford@teleport.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000 14:17:48 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Perhaps I've missed something, but when have web accessibility advocates 
said don't use graphics?  All I ask is that if you use graphics you include 
alternative text.  To me that's not asking that you eliminate graphics in 
any sense.

Kelly Ford

At 05:42 PM 10/5/00 -0700, you wrote:
>At 07:28 PM 10/5/00 +0100, Dave  J Woolley wrote:
> >> A 10 second download does not necessarily mean light graphics, it
> >> means a speedy connection. Users who are too impatient to wait for a
> >> download are better served by faster connection capabilities, not by
> >       [DJW:]
> >       That costs money.  Large amounts of money in some
> >       parts of the world.  Applying a financial penalty
> >       tends to discriminate against those outside the USA
> >       and those unable to get well paid work, often
> >       including the physically disabled (note I see
> >       accessibility as being not just about disablement).
>Unfortunately, this is where I differ from many who are working for
>Accessibility for DISABLED folks. I think the guidelines should first
>accommodate all those with disabilities before we worry about those who
>choose not to buy what they need. Again, the answer to slow download is a
>faster connection, and if you can't afford a faster connection, that at
>least don't get in the way of those who can and who NEED the graphics.
> >> taking away the bread and butter from users who depend on the graphics
> >> to understand the conteent of a page.
> >>
> >       [DJW:]  I am having difficulty thinking of any site
> >       where casual graphics helped me and can think of
> >       many sites where I had to play "hunt the hyperlink".
>Using graphics for links is but one use of graphics on a page. If graphics
>do not help you, does that tell you they don't help others? It shouldn't.
>You shouldn't stop your thinking at the end of your own nose. Broaden your
>perspective. Statistically, "retarded" folks are about 3 percent of the
>total population. What percentage of the disabled population would that be?
>Statistically, "learning disabled" folks, many of whom have significant to
>severe problems with text, are some 20-25% of the total population in the
>US. Again, what percentage of the US disabled is that? If you have access
>to numbers on the total disabled population, you can easily figure out how
>many are likely to NEED graphics.
>Shouldn't needs of truly disabled folks be addressed before concerns over
>costs to the able-bodied (and way before concerns over the users of
>wireless devices)?
> >
> >> Continuing to argue against graphics, multi-media, and other
> >> advantages of the web over print, is to argue against the likely
> >> acceptance of accessibility. It's time to be realistic.
> >[DJW:]
> >I'd agree that commercial organisations will see anything
> >that forces them to abandon graphics in order to get
> >an accessihilitity rating as being a significant
> >imposition on them.  Once one accepts this, and if one
> >also accepts that accessibility of commercial web sites
> >is a valid public policy aim, one either
> >has to find ways of improving accessibility at no cost
> >to the authors and without affecting their use of
> >multimedia, or one forces them.  I don't see any realistic
> >proposals for the former and I see an increasing amount
> >of the latter.
>The best disclaimer that is likely to overturn accessibility is the fact
>that accessibility that says to avoid graphics to the distress of those who
>need them, isn't accessibility for ALL disabled folks using the web.
>  (Tools that allow motivated authors to
> >improve accessibility don't count, as the motivation isn't
> >there.)
>Authors aren't going to be motivated to do what is illogical. Until full
>accessibility is covered by "accessibility", it just hits the gut as bad
>policy - leading to bad law which is likely to be overturned quickly.
>                                         Anne
>Anne L. Pemberton
>Enabling Support Foundation
Received on Thursday, 5 October 2000 17:17:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:10 UTC