Re: draft guideline (R2/2)

The (R2/2) indicates the second of two replies

to follow up on what Geoff Freed said:
> 
> I agree strongly that all images should have a text description
> of some kind, be it separate or located on the same page.

... I would demur on the "all."  I hope we can articulate
priorities for which images really need descriptions, because I
don't think we're going to get all.

> However, I think there are two categories of descriptions which
> should be considered: objective and critical (or interpretive).
> Objective descriptions simply provide information about what's
> happening in the image; they let the user provide his or her own
> interpretation.  They are similar to audio descriptions used in
> movies and television programs.  Critical or interpretive
> descriptions, on the other hand, can be used to provide either
> subjective opinion, where appropriate, *or* interpretive analysis
> which may not be immediately deduced from an objective
> description.  One need not exclude the other: a chart or graph
> may require an interpretive description in addition to an
> objective one.  I would think that, in most cases, an objective
> description would do the trick.  However, I think these two types
> of descriptions should be kept separate.  In other words, is it
> possible that some images will require two descriptions?
> 

I agree that this distinction is useful.  I tried to say that
description is required and interpretation is OK.  I agree that
the description and interpretation should ideally be presented in
a way such that the visitor can tell the difference.  A good
writer will communicate this distinction using natural language
cues.  What kind of a "keep it separate" rule would you envision?
So far I am not coming up with anything that looks like a real
winner.

In terms of what works now, you have to look at what Jamal Mazrui
is doing to take multi-file web documents and make them available
as single-file text documents for blind people.  The offline use
of the screen-reader is their analog to our dumping things to the
printer.  I'm not sure that yet more separate files would deliver
a net usability benefit in the end.

One of the issues that I realized is floating in my mind on this
objective/subjective issue is the question of who is doing the
describing.  NCAM and RFB&D have been in the situation of
furnishing descriptions as a third party.  These groups have
developed a "just the facts" ethic to a high level because
they are systematically providing third-party transcriptions in a
lot of cases.

One of the great things about the WWW is the way it often
eliminates the middle-man.  If we can get to the authors of the
Web content, we have a first-party description situation.  Here
the approach can be much more free to "articulate your message"
and is not limited to the "just the facts" domain of the
third-party intermediary.

I hope this notion of first-party speech vs. third-party
transcription will help communicate why I don't think that the
best practice from NCAM and RFB&D experience translates directly
into recommended practice for web authors.  Guidelines requiring
objectivity are natural for third-party transcription.  I think
they are problematical for first-party annotation.

-- Al Gilman

Received on Thursday, 17 July 1997 15:03:34 UTC