Re: why ALT text alone doesn't suffice for many blind/VI users

aloha, kynn!

you seem to have completely missed my point -- there are many gradations of 
vision loss, and simply lumping them into 2 monolithic categories--"the 
blind" and "low vision users"--simply doesn't cut it...

as for logos, if the alternative actually contains the same _content_ as 
the logo, as is the case with the W3C Validation logos and the WAI logos, 
then wherein lies the problem, other than ensuring that the color contrast 
is sufficient?  this is mostly an educational issue -- what constitutes 
appropriate ALT text; how to use the TITLE attribute to add 
orientational/semantic information to a link; and what constitutes 
sufficient color contrast...   placing a WCAG compliance logo on a site 
doesn't invalidate that site's conformance claim, provided that the logo is 
properly ALT texted and provides sufficient color contrast...

and, yes, it is glib to say, just because a page can be read (even with 
great difficulty) it is accessible, just as it is glib to say that simply 
because someone can get linux, emacspeak, and the w3 line browser all for 
free, the most pernicious problems facing blind users have been 
eradicated...  the number of users who are proficient at using any of the 
above, let alone all 3 in combination, is extremely small, and if you think 
that vocational rehab counselors are going to learn linux, emacspeak, and 
the w3 browser in order to provide blind students with the maximum online 
experience possible, you are living on a planet to which i, for one, would 
like to emigrate...

likewise, lynx on a Win32 or Mac box doesn't cut it, because (unless you 
compile the program yourself--an undue burden by any standard), you can't 
access secure socket sites...  and, for those lucky enough to have shell 
access, they are not only likely to have access to a version of lynx that 
doesn't support https, but which is several years old...  so are you 
saying, then, that Lynx users should be happy that they are getting text, 
the whole text, and nothing but the text, when some of the most attractive 
potentialities of the web to persons with disabilities-- such as the 
ability to shop for oneself, learn at one's own pace on one's own schedule, 
and manage one's finances _oneself_ in a timely manner--are often not 
available to lynx users because of a lack of built-in support for secure 
sockets?

besides, the bulk of my emessage was devoted to situations in which people 
who are legally classified as "blind" _do_ use images, or sometimes have to 
use what vision they have in order to decipher an image, due to the 
inherent limitations of the software available to them...

moreover, your statement:

quote
Why should it be different for other people?  (Lynx, IE 5, and other 
browsers which can overcome this problem are free and even the "costly" 
Opera is a fraction of the cost of, say, JAWS or a braille display.)
unquote

leaves me mystified--what does this have to do with the issues raised in my 
post?  Lynx alone isn't a satisfactory solution for the vast majority of 
users (disabled and non-disabled alike) for the reasons enumerated above, 
and IE5 can't be relied upon to expand ALT text...   yes, opera is pretty 
cheap as applications go, but it has a pretty steep learning 
curve--especially for users incapable of perceiving its gestalt view and to 
whom the navigational conventions of other quote mainstream unquote 
browsers is second nature, but which lead to very different results when 
used in opera...

the same problem also limits the spread/dissemination of browsers that are 
targeted at a particular audience...  blind people are just as resistant to 
the unfamiliar as is the general populace (and why shouldn't they be--isn't 
that their prerogative?), but at least they have a firm foundation for 
their resistance--one comment i have heard innumerable times when 
demonstrating WebSpeak or HPR is, "gee, that's pretty damn impressive, but 
the last thing i need is to learn yet another interface and keyboard 
overlay--i already have to use 2 screen readers just to function at work, 
and i simply don't have the time, energy, and spare brain cells to learn 
how to effectively use yet another self-voicing application"

gregory.

At 03:49 PM 10/20/00 -0700, you wrote:
>At 01:06 PM 10/20/2000 , Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote:
> >i simply believe very strongly that the WG needs to shy away from 
> blanket statements such as "this is sufficient for disability group A" 
> and "this is what members of disability group B should do" with the 
> implicit (albeit mostly unconscious) unstated terminating clause, 
> "instead of complaining to us" -- real life ain't that easy, and the 
> utility of lumping individuals into amorphous categories which bear 
> monolithic names, such as "the blind", "the deaf"hya, and the 
> "cognitively impaired/disabled" troubles me immensely..
>
>But we -are- saying "This is what web designers should do" and we
>need to be able to justify all those.
>
>If a page is designed in a way that it -can- be read, and there are
>freely available solutions which one can choose to use -- such as
>running Lynx with a high font size? -- then why exactly is it unfair
>to suggest that is a viable option?
>
>For people who are blind, we say "give them text" -- and that assumes
>the use of proper assistive technology and settings on that assistive
>tech in order to meet their needs.  In other words, we assume a blind
>person will use a screenreader, a braille terminal, or something else
>which can convert text into a form they can use, if the tool is given
>enough information to do so.
>
>Why should it be different for other people?  (Lynx, IE 5, and other
>browsers which can overcome this problem are free and even the "costly"
>Opera is a fraction of the cost of, say, JAWS or a braille display.)
>
>--
>Kynn Bartlett  <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                    http://kynn.com/
>Director of Accessibility, Edapta               http://www.edapta.com/
>Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet   http://www.idyllmtn.com/
>AWARE Center Director                      http://www.awarecenter.org/
>What's on my bookshelf?                         http://kynn.com/books/

-------------------------------------------------------------------
SENATE, n.  A body of elderly gentlemen charged with high duties
and misdemeanors.       -- Ambrose Beirce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory J. Rosmaita <unagi69@concentric.net
Camera Obscura: <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/index.html>
VICUG NYC: <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/vicug/index.html>
Read 'Em & Speak: <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/books/index.html>
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Friday, 20 October 2000 20:12:45 UTC