- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 00:39:04 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- cc: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
This is a bit theoretical. Maybe not the most obvious appraoch to dealing with people who have reading disabilities, but it does work for me. I (in the post-modernist tradition) would go further, and maintain that John Lennon and Paul McCartney whistling to each other and playing a guitar are also creating a text, with never a written representation. As is an animator producing a storyboard (a sequence of pictures, essentially a cartoon, wihch is often the fundamental origin for a movie, and from which screenplay (the written text), lighting and effects, and so on, are all developed. The Bayeux tapestry (a particularly important text for me) consists mostly of pictures, with a line of text explaining a bit more. Neither really stands on its own, although either can be used (depending on the circumstances) as a quick reminder. And an awful lot of work was done in the middle of the twentieth century on oral composition of stories, in which there is no written text, but a general understanding of the required elements, and a particular telling. This could be mirrored on the web by providing story fragments in metadata (Joseph Campbell, I think, produced a mammoth scheme for mythology some decades ago, which could be readily encoded in RDF) and then attaching stock phraseology via a kind of style sheet - it doesn't matter exactly what the "text" is, so long as it conveys the right sort of elements. As another paralell, one of these stories is the Odyssey, by Homer. It was told in archaic greek, and written down as well. In english there are two or three dozen translations of it (it's very popular), all of them different, all of them the Odyssey (I am not counting things like James Joyce's Ulysses, although that is also a telling of the story). The question of "which is the text of the Odyssey" doesn't necessarily have a right answer - for some purposes it is the one whch uses the same vocabulary (as nearly as possible) as the original, for other purposes it is the one which replicates the verse structure, although it changes the words used. Where is this leading? To the idea that thinking of a "text" as writing is too limiting. Many things are conveyed non-textually, either becuase that is how they are created (in the case of beatles songs) or because that is how they are best received (in the case of people who wait until the movie comes out rather than reading the book). Each of these different presentations is a first-class representation of the "story" - so long as you can "read" it (an important qulaification of course) you are getting the story, and if you can't use one form, the way to convey the story to you is through another. Whether it is sign language, music, interactive text, interactive sound and light, written words or mime, there is a requirement for alternative formats because there are people who, because of a disability, can't read the story as is. In some cases we can translate mechanically, but in many we still can't do that. cheers Charles McCN On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Jason White wrote: Al raised an important issue. I would tend to maintain that musical notation, for example, is a "text" in the required sense of the term, as is mathematical notation, natural language, the text of a computer programme, a formal language, etc. The underlying question is: what is the criterion of identification here? Natural language is medium-independent because the signs of which it is composed are related to each other according to syntactic conventions, and are not intrinsically tied to any specific set of phonemes, graphemes, etc. Thus the linguistic relations among the signs can be represented in phonemes (including, of course, the conventional ones used in speaking the language), in graphemes (in theory many different systems could be chosen, apart from those which are conventionally used, for example the written alphabet), etc. I am sure that linguists have criteria with which to distinguish langauges (and other systems of conventional symbols) from other kinds of presentational phenomena (E.G. non-linguistic sounds and images). One of the basic requirements of the guidelines, then, is to start with the most language-like (or symbolic) representation possible, which can then be presented in a range of media. The requirement for "equivalents" arises when this approach can not be or has not been followed. Linguistically informed readers can doubtless supply the proper terminology in which such criteria are normally expressed, which would then serve to delimit our understanding of what a "text" is for purposes of the guidelines. -- 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 Monday, 17 July 2000 00:39:10 UTC