- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1998 08:05:30 -0700
- To: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
"In addition to sending reports to webmasters, should reports be made
public?"
No. Intent is too important and cannot be readily judged.
re: automated alt=: "How can we determine value of various approaches?
e.g. apply by hand to "typical" pages?"
Most of the proposals for anything except human intervention are a
little "pie-in-sky". As long as the discussions of these methods
doesn't distract us from the *right now* problem of FORCING alt= usage
it is probably OK but should not be considered as a *real* solution for
a long time to come. We must concentrate on getting alt= inclusion to
be authormatic rather than automatic. The au wg needs all the help it
can get to demand that authoring tools vendors comply with the rules of
the game.
re: audio browser simulation: "What would value of this tool be?, e.g.
compared with viewing via Lynx?"
If it can work well it would be one more concrete example for web
designers to experience the problem and see how weak the solution is.
If the people who work on this stuff would work without monitor and
mouse for a week, they'd really begin to "get it" instead of just "oh,
yeah I bet that's tough".
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
http://dicomp.pair.com
Received on Monday, 5 October 1998 11:06:52 UTC