- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 12:21:22 -0400 (EDT)
- To: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- cc: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>, Cynthia Shelly <cyns@whatuwant.net>, "'w3c-wai-gl@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
No, you still need to provide content that is overall accessible. But images
don't absolutely have to be directly accesssible becuase you can provide
alternatives - longdesc, alt, etc. This is just about generalising the
prnciple to have a better range of alternatives available (which has some
side benefits in terms of download times and being able to give nicer
presentation and so on).
This is one of the two approaches - the other is to go the SVG way of making
the information more directly accessible. I don't know which path is better
since it i s hard to know in advance which will lead to people actually doing
the required work. But both are feasible, they can co-exist, and we move
forwards...
Cheers
Charles McCN
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000, William Loughborough wrote:
At 06:45 AM 10/13/00 -0700, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>Uh, part of the whole point of doing server-side multiple interfaces is
>that the different pages don't _have_ to be held to the same
>standard of accessibility.
If there are pages not "held to the same standard" and no pages "held to
the standard" how is this not a copout loophole? I can fill my server with
inaccessible material and avoid conformance of my efforts because I include
a (claimed) equivalent? I thought the "whole point" of server-side
multiples was to allow choice by the user not to get around a "requirement".
If "separate but equal" seems merely "pithy" it's because you didn't see
what previous versions of that notion produced in our society first-hand. I
can absolutely assure you that this isn't just an inappropriately used
slogan. "there is no need to require that every single interface be equally
accessible to everyone -- only that the mechanism for selecting an
appropriate interface be of the highest level of
accessibility" is what's "_very_ dangerous" because the selection mechanism
is of no use when there's nothing usable to select from.
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
--
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, Australia
September - November 2000:
W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Friday, 13 October 2000 12:21:53 UTC