W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2008

Re: Wordle worthwhile to accessify?

From: Harry Loots <harry.loots@ieee.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:31:37 +0100
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-Id: <20081017113137.M74734@ieee.org>

on Fri, 17 Oct 2008 Mel at Black Widow Web Design wrote: 

> Maybe he could be persuaded to place some of the algorithms that 
> Wordle uses under GPL so that others could work on a equivalent? The 
> Wordle creation interface does produce a simple word frequency list 
> when it creates the graphic but there is obviously more to it than 
> just word frequency. Looks like there's some sort of 
> weighting/adjustment going to on to compound the value of plurals 
> etc. Without access to those general calculations, it would be 
> difficult to produce a decent equivalent.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_cloud for more information about the
principles behind tag/text/word clouds and others providing similar
functionality. 

I would be surprised if he was able to claim credit for the idea of 'clouds'
itself. The main difference between wordle and other 'clouds' are in the
presentation mechanism - words are coloured and sized according to weight.
These words are then rendered in a graphic format in horizontal and/or
vertical arrangment. 

I would venture a guess that any of these could be adapted quite rapidly to
generate random or precise vertical / horizontal patterns, and with the help
of ImageMagick one should then be able to render this information to graphical
format. 

Ironically: wordle starts with text - the image is 'alternative content' ;) -
pity then that the words could not simply be exported as a simple .html file
associated with the graphic (click on 'word count' in one of wordle's menu
options and you'll see a list of words used complete with count)

Members of this group: should we collectively write to feinberg and appeal to
his generosity - i believe he has already shown generosity in making the tool
available for people to use as they see fit under CCL with very few conditions
and in so doing advance accessibility by one small step? 

 

Kind regards
Harry

Mob: +44 7826 926 994

~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~
 We do not inherit the Earth from our Parents-
 We are simply Borrowing it from our Children!

 Join 'Consumer Resistance Against Packaging' at
http://apps.new.facebook.com/causes/57239?recruiter_id=12448357
~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~


---------- Original Message -----------
From: Black Widow Web Design <webmistress@blackwidows.co.uk>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Sent: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:40:23 +0100
Subject: Re: Wordle worthwhile to accessify?

> on 16/10/2008 12:42 Harry Loots said the following:
> 
> > Please can someone tell feinberg that accessibility is about providing
> > equivalent content - nothing more nor less. 
> 
>  From what I can tell, he's aware of the principle but is currently 
> convinced that Wordle is purely visual and therefore has no 
> "equivalent". I (and others) are equally convinced that a Wordle 
> provides meta data about a piece of text and that he has chosen to 
> use a graphical method to convey that meta data. Consequently, the 
> same meta data could be provided in an alternative form. Whether the 
> alternative would be a true & complete equivalent is another matter.
> 
> > Quite frankly i find feinberg's response arrogant and definitely not in tune
> > with the world we as accessibility advocates and practitioners are trying to
> > promote: one where people receive equal treatment. 
> 
> I think he's confused and probably more than a little defensive 
> right now.
> 
> > I will definitely not be using wordle on any of the websites that i am
> > directly involved in or have any say in, until feinberg provides an equivalent
> > content for people who are unable to make sense of the visual version. 
> 
> Maybe he could be persuaded to place some of the algorithms that 
> Wordle uses under GPL so that others could work on a equivalent? The 
> Wordle creation interface does produce a simple word frequency list 
> when it creates the graphic but there is obviously more to it than 
> just word frequency. Looks like there's some sort of 
> weighting/adjustment going to on to compound the value of plurals 
> etc. Without access to those general calculations, it would be 
> difficult to produce a decent equivalent.
> 
> Mel
> -- 
> Black Widow Web Design Ltd
> www.blackwidows.co.uk
> info@blackwidows.co.uk
------- End of Original Message -------
Received on Friday, 17 October 2008 11:32:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:29 GMT