W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > July 2002

Re: [svg-developers] Re: Announcing Geo-Colors a new SVG Geographic Information System Software

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 14:40:56 +0200
Message-ID: <8613425000.20020724144056@w3.org>
To: www-svg@w3.org, "Jim Ley" <jim@jibbering.com>
CC: svg-developers@yahoogroups.com

On Wednesday, July 24, 2002, 1:57:58 PM, Jim wrote:

JL> "Chris Lilley" <chris@w3.org>
>> On Wednesday, July 24, 2002, 2:40:46 AM, Dave wrote:
>> DP> At 04:59 23/07/2002, Ronan wrote:
>> >>I'm not sure what your escape on this requirement is.
>> >>If it's keyboard support, then that's one thing, but if the
JL> requirement is
>> >>for vision-impaired users, then you prob. need to redirect them away
JL> from an
>> >>SVG-rendered application and towards a text-only version.
>> DP> Why Ronan? Shove the poor blind folk off in a corner?
>> That was uncalled-for. Lets try and be constructive here. Serving
>> alternate content, especially if the text version and the graphical
>> version and the voice version are generated from the same source
>> information and are equally timely and up to date, is certainly a
>> viable way to go.

JL> Only generally as a _last resort_  because of combinations of Access
JL> Needs, such multiple versions nearly always exclude someone, for example
JL> someone may have poor in general ability to get content from text however
JL> they're also red/green colour blind,

Yes, agreed. But to take both forms of red/green color blindness into
account (one of which shows red and green at the same brightness, one
shows red darker than green) plus the less common yellow-violet color
blindness, plus low contrast acuity, one would be restricted in
content to the colors black and white. Not greys, but black and white.

Plus of course, text is terribly inaccessible since it requires
someone to understand a particular human language or to rely on very
imperfect machine translation. It also requires literacy in that
language. This is why, in an international terms, graphics are
accessible to many more people than a purely text version.

JL> so your images are the best form
JL> generally however for the small amount of content which relies on
JL> red/green colour then a text equivalent is needed but only for that
JL> element of the whole.

JL> Also of course with multiple formats, how does a user find the
JL> appropriate resource for them - how does a SVG viewing person tell their
JL> friend who needs a text version what the url is...

This is where content negotiation is supposed to help - the same URL
delivers multiple formats based on Accept headers or CC/PP profiles.

>> DP> Or even device independent events?
>> If there is nothing proposed, let
>> alone discussed, reviewed and implementable, then berating people for
>> not having implemented it already is a trifle premature.

JL> The SVG working group is closed, and has no public charter,

And its the WAI WGs that would be making the proposal so, since most
of them are open in fact, feel free to take part in creating such a

JL> it's very
JL> difficult to be even motivated to make constructive comments about the
JL> future of SVG as those outside the W3 don't know what SVG is intendedd to
JL> be (is it a simple image format, is it an application format like flash
JL> etc.)

JL> Do I spend my time writing up a well thought out proposal to deal with
JL> the lack of keyboard, forms etc. in SVG, when these are things which the
JL> working group consider wholly outside their scope.

I specifically invited concrete proposals in this area. Rest assured
that any proposal you make will be read, and considered.

JL> Also of course the public mailing lists of the w3 tend to not welcome
JL> discussion of proposals (if a proposal/bug report/question is responded
JL> to on the list at all it's via no more than an acknowledgement, but they
JL> often go uncommented on entirely.)

Jim, do you want to contribute? if so, say so, and do it.

I get the impression more of a parade of excuses. Other people have
indeed contributed to the SVG (and other W3C) specifications by making
reasoned, informed, and detailed technical suggestions on the public
lists, which is what such public lists are for.

JL> If the working group needs more specific input from the wider community,
JL> they need to open up the process somewhat, and if they do not already
JL> have accessibiltiy experience within the group to deal with the
JL> accessibility issues raised by implementation experience - then I'm very
JL> concerned.

I am somewhat concerned that you argue both that you know nothing
about the group and also, that you know the group is flawed in its
workings ;-) you can't have it both ways.

I also note that you have completely ignored any comments about your
site with its inaccessible, invalid HTML. High-sounding pronouncements
about accessibility make great soundbites, but contribute little. A
detailed proposal or set of technical requirements would accomplish a
lot more.

 Chris                            mailto:chris@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 24 July 2002 08:41:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:46:53 UTC