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

text:graphic was: XML? (no, caching)

From: jonathan chetwynd <jc@signbrowser.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2000 13:11:46 +0100
Message-ID: <005401c03120$eeeb81e0$1ec4883e@windows>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
If you are using Explorer and windows98 you might like to visit:
http://www.signbrowser.org.uk/2k/testing/champagne.html
can anyone advise me how prevalent this type of linkage is acroos the web,.
I cannot say i have come across it. I had imagined that security issues
might have precluded usage of links to the hard drive and never bothered to
try it, how lazy can one get. Of course it does not help if you dont have
the library, and one still needs a possiblity to downlaod if the default is
absent.

I recognise that W3C/WAI does not have a magic wand, however if we could
design a suitable document identifying what was needed, it would help other
standard setters to identify their requirements. We need an easy to use and
cheap solution, similar to 'alt tags' in implementation. The web page author
might not even need to be aware of the change, though WAI will need to push
the use of plain english for the forseeable future.

My intention was both to not define the problem too tightly and thus allow
others to express their current understanding, and enquire what efforts
WAI/W3C (including members and the web) is making to ensure that personal
graphics libraries might be as accessible as character fonts. This does not
require the authorization or even design of a 'standard graphics font'.
There is absolutely no need to tie this project up in expensive and
unnessary text or applications. Every time one selects a graphic by whatever
means, a conversion from text(ok this could be binary) to graphic is taking
place.

I would hope we could identify, what changes are essential to allow the use
of a local database of graphics and yet retain the advantages of the web?
Are we sure we need a change to HTTP and could we define it?

Imagine if we had to design a browser that added alt text, the problem seems
insurmountable yet we know another way was found. Designing a browser that
displays a known graphic with each word, is simple and solves the problem
but unfortunately many of the benefits of the web are lost. It remains an
'excluded' product,

If standard graphics libraries are to be used, can we help define the
problems and make it easier for library creators to implement.
The libraries need to be editable by the user(or carer), unlike standard
character fonts. Yet this can create chaos...

If the local desktop is missing graphics ultimately something like AKAMAI
might be required. Most LD users might be happy in the first case if some
graphics were missing, or slow to download.

It might need the design of a particular browser similar to lynx in its
limitations.
eg: selected download of graphics, and 0-30 words per page limits(see Dr
Seuss).
or would this also exclude unnecessarily.

I probably could go on, but my wife has been very patient this morning, our
guest are arriving any minute and realistically does this make any sense?

jonathan chetwynd

jc@signbrowser.org.uk
IT teacher (learning difficulty)
& accessibility consultant
Received on Sunday, 8 October 2000 08:15:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:50 GMT