- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 11:26:44 -0400 (EDT)
- To: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- cc: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Some concrete things we could do: provide photos of people using braille devices. Provide audio samples, accessible smil examples, etc. Charles McCN On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: I think there is truth in the suggestion that an all-text document may not be completely accessible, if comprehension can be facilitated with non-textual illustration. Some concrete examples are the proposed SMIL accessibility note, which coul really use some flowchart diagrams. I am personally loath to claim anything as triple-A compliant unless I am very sure that it is clearly written, appropriately illustrated, and everything else has been exhaustively checked. This is the effect of 14.2 on me. Whether the "out" offered is easy or not depends on the context - this is about as it should be, in my humble opinion. Charles McCN On Tue, 24 Aug 1999, William Loughborough wrote: 14.2 Supplement text with graphic or auditory presentations where they will facilitate comprehension of the page. [Priority 3] IJ:: "This seems to mean that an all-text document...cannot conform at Level Triple-A." The decision as to what qualifies as "where they will facilitate" is an easy exit for this since so many on this list and IG have made it clear that in their humble opinions the addition of graphic or auditory presentations not only will not facilitate, but in fact inhibit comprehension. No matter how deplorable it may be that non-readers are shut out of access to text, until something more than "wouldn't it be nice if..." shows up, things like 14.2 can have no effect: i.e. *what* graphics, etc. will actually be useful? The problem of pinning down what colors are "effective" is a trivial problem compared to which illustrations are in fact illustrative and the color debate rages on. Triple-A in this case is in the mind of the author since the trial judge would be hard put to argue that the GL home page would demonstrably improve with the addition of illustrations in the face of opposing views claiming that they interfere with usability. -- Love. ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE http://dicomp.pair.com --Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +1 617 258 0992 http://www.w3.org/People/Charles W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI MIT/LCS - 545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139, USA --Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +1 617 258 0992 http://www.w3.org/People/Charles W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI MIT/LCS - 545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139, USA
Received on Tuesday, 24 August 1999 11:26:53 UTC