- From: Wayne Myers-Education <wayne.myers@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 15:06:03 -0000
- To: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
Hi, Jonathan, of course it is axiomatic that we respect other points of view. However, pages that are 100% gif files which do not contain textual alternatives are clearly described in the current draft of the Page Author Guidelines in the following way: 'If text equivalents are not provided for visual information, people who are blind, have low vision, or any user who cannot or has chosen not to view graphics will not know the purpose of the visual components on the page.' This is a lot more polite than saying that pages that are 100% gif files are stupid, but it is basically saying the same thing. In the context of an accessibility issues discussion group, one might expect people to make strong and robust arguments or statements in favour of accessibility as described in the current draft guidelines (or beyond). To my mind, this would include describing pages that are 100% gif files as stupid, especially in the context of the fact that the various HTML specifications at no point contain any indication that such pages are intended or indeed desirable. Pages that contain mainly gif files but with meaningful textual alternatives for each one do not count as '100% gif files'. Are you perhaps suggesting that this draft of the Guidelines is in error, and should read something like 'If text equivalents are not provided for visual information, people who are blind, have low vision or any user who cannot or has chosen not to view graphics will not know the purpose of the visual components on the page. Unless the site is described as deliberately being for 'non-readers' in which case the page author may do exactly as they wish with our blessing, because god forbid we should cast aspersions on the accessibility efforts of others.' I don't think you will find much support for such a suggestion, because it doesn't make any sense. > Our site www.peepo.com is for non readers, some deaf, with a > comprehension(reading) level ~age 3-10. I am fascinated by the nature of your work with developing websites for non-readers and would be very interested to hear of some kind of theoretical basis for your notion that small little gifs distributed in no clearly discernible order on a page which itself reloads on a regular basis without any kind of textual contextualisation at all or ALT attributes (so this accessiblity page is deliberately inaccessible to the blind, visually impaired, users of text-only browsers etc) is in some way more accessible to some group of people than others. I must confess an embarrassing degree of ignorance here, since to be frank, your page doesn't look to me to be accessible to anyone at all in any way at all, except in the context of other masterpieces of net.art, which www.peepo.com undoubtedly is, deliberately cocking a snook as it does at our preconceived notions of linkage, context, graphical aesthetica and the stability of the HTML page. It may be, then, that I have failed to understand various key things to do with the accessibility group you mention. I would be very grateful therefore, if you could please explain why it is accessible and appropriate for you to link to the Cosmopolitan horoscopes page, to the Smithsonian "Revealing Things" exhibition (which is heavily textual in its contextualisation), to the very text heavy 'Allied Chemical Music Division' site (slogan - 'it's a better world through chemicals', URL: http://alliedchemical.com/blackops/ ) , to the Vauxhall driver reaction time simulator site on http://www.vauxhall-drts.com/home.htm and to various other sites that are clearly manifestly unsuitable for non-readers, containing as they do a large amount of text. Similarly, your link to http://www.byrne.dircon.co.uk/faeces/index.htm may well be considered to be inappropriate on a site designed, as you say, for those with a reading age of between 3 and 10, in light of the fact that you make no note suggesting that it may not, in fact, be considered suitable for children by teachers and parents (whatever children themsleves may think of such a site.) > I hope it will soon have shockwave,GIFs work wonders, text > labels mainly > confuse. Again, this is in direct contradiction to the current draft guidelines, which tend, in general, to recommend text labels. To quote: ' It is good practice, as you design a document containing non-textual information (images, graphics, applets, sounds, etc.) to think about supplementing that information with textual equivalents wherever possible.' Your suggestion seems to be in fact something along the lines of the following: 'It is good practice, as you design a document containing non-textual information, not to bother with textual equivalents, because they mainly confuse.' I think that such wildly divergent ideas are going to be hard to bring to any kind of consensus. Nevertheless, I look forward to your reply with interest. Cheers etc., Wayne Myers Interactive Software Engineer BBC Digital Media http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/ 0181-752-6116
Received on Monday, 1 March 1999 10:06:48 UTC