W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2002

Re: Blind Users and Web Comics

From: Patrick Burke <burke@ucla.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 15:07:52 -0800
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20020110145522.0239deb0@pop.bol.ucla.edu>
To: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
At 12:13 AM 1/10/02, David Woolley wrote:
>Patrick Burke wrote:
>
>>the political point that it makes, which can be stated pretty well with 
>>words).  Clearly the pure text version does not replace the original 
>>work, just as a book of art criticism does not rplace the works it
>
>
>If you make the meaning of a political cartoon explicit, you may well
>get sued for libel (or, in some countries, or at some times, thown in
>jail).   I think one of the reasons why political cartoons developed
>was that they allowed people to make comments that they could not
>safely have made in explicit form.
>
>Surely there is room for subtlety here. You don't have to say "Tony Blair 
>takes bribes" or whatever. You can say "Man with hand outstretched toward 
>bag of money. ... Address above doorway reads #10 Downing Street." Which 
>is still not very subtle, but depending on the situation I'm sure text 
>could be written that was vague enough yet enough to let readers fill in 
>the blanks.

& Yes, I know, quit calling you Shirley. ...

>(Note that the BBC morning paper reviews sometimes describe such
>cartoons, but only in terms of the image, not its meaning.)
>
>This would be fine, or at least better than nothing.


[Patrick steps into phone booth. Seconds later, ALT Man emerges & flies off 
to appropriately label the world's comics Web sites. ZWOOOOSHSH! ]

Patrick
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2002 18:09:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:00 GMT