- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 09:25:38 -0700
- To: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>, WAI WCAG List <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- CC: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
WC:: "Thoughts? Are there other examples where the need for an auditory description is questionable? where context may determine if it is required or not?" WL: In a way it's great that we are dealing with this micro-granular level of analysis as it relates to accessibility. The "need" for descriptions of music videos begs the question of "required" since it will always: 1)depend on author whims; 2)depend on context; 3)seem trivial to those not affected. On the one hand demands for universal provision of narratives for *everything* that might be posted to the Web invite ridicule and PC jokes, on the other these things are vital to some users. Must every nuance of everything be described - even for those who: don't care?; can't be expected to understand? Do we have to explain the cultural meanings of arcane references ("in this case 'bad' actually means 'good' as evidenced by the appearance of the user of the term who is obviously (to whom?)...)? I think the difference between this issue and whether all links are labeled "click here" is several orders of magnitude. Many will argue that it's not too much of a stretch to expect that it will be career-vital to a blind user to know that Sinead's head is shaved, but... (maybe she's on chemos and it's rude to point out her baldness <g?>) Please excuse the ramblings of creeping senility but I believe there are more pressing matters. -- Love. ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE http://dicomp.pair.com
Received on Thursday, 3 August 2000 12:26:40 UTC