- From: Matt May <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 10:13:33 -0700
- To: "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com> > At 3:32 PM +0100 4/24/01, Jonathan Chetwynd wrote: > >Perhaps to recommend that all government domains must contain some > >multimedia content?? [snip] > The idea is a good one, but to flesh it out more > we need to tell them > how and why to use multimedia. Yes! This is where I was going with the idea of creating how-to documents on designing sites for certain disabilities. We can't tell content providers that a multimedia treatment of any given subject matter would be quantifiably better in accessibility. That is primarily because we have to assume they have domain knowledge of the information they're trying to convey, and we do not. What we can do that is constructive is to inform the providers of the limitations of certain members of the audience they're targeting, and recommend methodologies that contribute to their access to information. We can guide people to a solution that suits their content, but I have trouble with the idea of saying either "Multimedia will make your site more accessible," or "If you don't have multimedia in your site, you can't make an accessibility claim." We should be providing content providers with the background to make informed decisions about presenting their own content, not mandating a solution that is already commonly used improperly. Multimedia tools are not even a part of the toolkit of many content providers, and most designers are unskilled at multimedia for anything other than attracting eyeballs for marketing purposes. > If we say that a site is "more > accessible" to people with cognitive disabilities if it contains > multimedia -- and I will accept that as true -- we need to give some > guideance as to how they should do it, and what it should cover. It's not that easy for me to accept that statement as the truth. I can disprove it personally as someone with ADD who can't retain information when sites play background music, for example, because it distracts me from the content I'm trying to reach. Flash only exacerbates the problem, because the Stop button on my browser doesn't stop the animation or sound. (There are an estimated 15 million Americans like me with ADD/ADHD, according to the U.S. National Institute for Mental Health.) > A relatively clueless government webmaster would see such a recommendation > and simply slap on any random multimedia content and declare the > job done! Even relatively clueful and good-intentioned web folks (that is, the folks who wouldn't use a requirement of multimedia as an excuse to throw up whatever marketing campaign they have going on a splash page) would have a rough time knowing whether they're helping or hurting if they were just given a requirement to add multimedia. - m
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2001 13:17:48 UTC