- 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