- 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