- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 15:12:06 -0400 (EDT)
- To: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Certainly. I think the group has made relatively good rpogress on dealing
with the need for describing visual (and to some extent aural) information in
text formats. SO i always assume that this is understood. I guess I
shouldn't.
cheers
Charles
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, William Loughborough wrote:
CMcCN:: "Anyone been to a lecture where the presenter just spoke, with
no visual aids, and found it difficult to access the content"
WL: Although Gregory can answer this a little better than I, the answer
is that *unexplained* visual aids might be as confusing (difficult) and
frustrating. Retinal input is unarguably effective but it requires
enormous training that is often ignored in discussions of this kind.
Just as unillustrated speech might be "difficult", so undefined (I think
that implies, even requires something like "text") visual communication
might be confusing/ineffective/diversive. Although it may be true that
we are what we eat, it is not clear that the world *is* what we see.
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
http://dicomp.pair.com
--
Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001, Australia
Received on Friday, 28 April 2000 15:12:09 UTC