- From: Bruce Bailey <bbailey@clark.net>
- Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2000 14:49:04 -0400
- To: "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Dear Al (et al.), I understand the argument, but I am loath to concede the point of P1 vs. P2. "Impossible" is, of course -- and quite deliberately, a high standard. Still, most of the P1 obstacles are not as insurmountable as missing ALT text. We know too that sometimes missing ALT content (and other P1 violations) do not always make use of a site "impossible" (even for someone who is blind) -- for example, the missing ALT tags might ONLY be on decorative images. There is also the stated intention to improve the guidelines so that they better address how to author pages so that they are more accessible to folks with cognitive disabilities. This falls in that category. Well, pumping up the font size [inside the browser in this case] so that there are fewer words to work with is one commonly used strategy for low literacy individuals. The effect is VERY different in practice to just using screen magnification -- which brings with it a fair about mental overhead and additional level of abstraction. (E.g., "What do you mean scroll down? I am at the bottom of the screen and there's no scrollbar button!") The magnified window is only shows PART of the regular screen (which in turn is only showing PART of the document). This may sound trivial, but these concepts are VERY difficult for beginning users to pick up on. It seems to me to be wholly contradictory to give lip service to improving the guidelines ability to address issues effecting learning disabilities when the justification of why something should be P2 and not P1 rests of existence of a technique which (you admit) is beyond the skill set of AVERAGE computer users! For the record, I have an easy time convincing site authors that this is a real accessibility problem. It would be most unusual for them to suggest AT that gets around this problem! WCAG P2 vs. P1 makes little difference to most folks I talk to. I am suggesting adding a new P1 item because I think there is a deficit in the guidelines, not because it will help me pitch making accessibility improvements. Sadly enough, there has been no movement by my agency, nor others in the state that I am aware of, to give blanket endorsement of the WCAG. In lieu of the fact that I am personally convinced of two P2 items that merit P1 consideration, perhaps this is a good thing. P1: Do not use images to provide body text content. P1: (5.3) Do not use tables for layout unless the table makes sense when linearized. -- Cheers, Bruce Bailey > -----Original Message----- > From: Al Gilman [mailto:asgilman@iamdigex.net] > Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2000 2:36 PM > To: Bruce Bailey; Charles McCathieNevile > Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > Subject: RE: Images of text -- P1 violation or no? > > > Yes; quick. And dirty; i.e. erroneous. > > The 'impossible' sentence is the definition. The "basic requirement' > sentence is commentary. "Basic requirement" is too open to variation in > interpretation between author and reader. > > For the class you describe, body text in GIF with full-text ALT is a P2, > not P1, per the definitions [based on some assumptions about the readily > available AT]. > > Yes, people should not do that. All of the guidelines through P3 are > things people should do. Your personal standards tell you that to > reasonably attempt to serve this population, one should ensure that the > body text is text, not image. But that doesn't migrate this > proposition to > a P1. It just says you recognize the importance of this P2 proposition. > > If the built-in magnifier in the OS will display the ALT text in a size > they can read, then their computer skills are the de_facto pacing obstacle > and not the GIF and it is not a P1. > > I'm sorry. You need to tell people in your organization that > "Just because > it may be unreasonable to expect _all pages_ to satisfy _all > guidelines_ in > any class beyond P1, this does not mean that there aren't Pn guidelines > beyond P1 which shouldn't be followed as the basic marching > orders for your > site." > > Al > > PS: I'm copying GL and not IG because this is the sort of ruling that > should be reviewed and consensed in GL before someone [either a staff > person or a chair] says things on IG which by reason of their other duties > might be interpreted as gospel.
Received on Thursday, 13 April 2000 14:52:28 UTC