W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2001

Proposal for 3.4 Success Criteria

From: Joe Clark <joeclark@contenu.nu>
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 10:33:06 -0400
Message-Id: <a0510030db791b72710b0@[65.92.97.51]>
To: w3c-wai-ig@W3.org
>* For any page that has a significantly concrete concept whose understanding
>can be enhanced with a visual element, auditory element, or interactive
>process to enhance understanding provide:
>
>a graphic illustration, and/or
>an audio clip, and/or,
>a virtual simulation and/or,
>a video,
>and/or link to content that contains illustrations of the concrete concept.
>A concrete concept is a person, place or thing. For example, an animal, a
>plant, or a product. It can also stand for a class of nouns - cats, birds,
>computers, mountains, hotel rooms.
>
>* For a page that describes an organization or concept for which there is a
>well known symbol or logo, include that symbol or logo in the content or
>link to content that contains the symbol or logo.

These lists of highly specific defined terms and cases are ridiculous 
and entirely unhelpful. If you demand illustrations, "concrete 
concepts" (an oxymoron) are not the only thing requiring illustration.

The entire enterprise of selecting just these terms here and there as 
a focus, and the even more risible attempts to define them, bring the 
Guidelines into disrepute. It is absurd to provide this level of 
specificity.

>* When referencing sounds, link to a clip of the sound.

This too has not been thought out properly as it applies to 
real-world Web sites. Apart from issues of programming complexity, 
server load, authoring-tool rights, and simple common sense, here's a 
question for you:

If I write about "Vasoline" by the Stone Temple Pilots, do I have to 
provide a 3 MB MP3 of that song on my piddling little server with its 
piddling little bandwidth?

I mean, it's a sound, right?

Next you'll be telling us "When referencing cuisine, prepare actual 
food for tasting."

Oh, and by the way, "reference" isn't a verb. I'm sure Gregg will dig 
up some dictionary definitions to prove it is.
-- 
         Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
         Accessibility articles, resources, and critiques:
         <http://joeclark.org/access/>
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2001 10:34:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:55 GMT