- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 12:24:08 -0800
- To: "Hansen, Eric" <ehansen@ets.org>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org, Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
At 02:55 PM 11/29/00 -0500, Hansen, Eric wrote:
>None of the WAI guideline documents (WCAG, UAAG, ATAG) have explicit
>permanent requirements for any equivalents other than text equivalents.
WCAG 1.0 "14.2 Supplement text with graphic or auditory presentations where
they will facilitate comprehension of the page."
WCAG 2.0 "3.7 Supplement text with graphic or auditory presentations where
they will facilitate comprehension of the content."
There is growing sentiment to strengthen the latter (2.0 is a
work-in-progress) because of the widespread concern that we are
insufficiently attentive to the needs of people with certain cognitive
problems like ADD, dyslexia, and any text comprehension difficulties. These
people often are better served with illustrated text and the heavy emphasis
on "text equivalents" for graphics/sound with no corresponding attention
to "graphical/sonic equivalents" for text is a concern of the Working Groups.
EH:: "Why so much focus on text equivalents?"
WL: You've got to start somewhere. Most of us had experience with our blind
friends/clients, less with other disabilities so we focused on what we knew.
I think the point that Al was trying to make is to avoid pre-packaged
setups for any of these assistive technologies - let the user rule. Of
course I could be mis-reading all this stuff.
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Wednesday, 29 November 2000 15:24:51 UTC