- From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 16:57:49 -0400
- To: apembert45@lycos.com, apembert45@lycos.com, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org, "Matt May" <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>
The discussion is beginning to degrade...that must mean we are close to a resolution? <grin/> I certainly hope so. I have done my best to get my head around the issues and to see as many perspectives on this issue as possible. I have documented my thoughts at: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2001/05/cog-notes.html I have called it <q>Wendy's unillustrated notes, thoughts, and questions about the recent WCAG WG "Illustrating Guidelines" thread</q> because it is very dense text and does not have one single illustration. <grin/> However, I tried to provide assistance for people who only want to skim the most important parts - e.g. using boxes, bold text, italic text, and lists. It is a living document, and will continue to change until we come to consensus on this topic. Anyone want to add anything? Have I grossly misinterpreted something? Let me know! Here is the table of contents: Axes of discussion Rough summary of main points of discussion Research To do's and questions Conclusions Open Issues Be well. Be civil. See each other's perspectives. Have patience. We <em>will</em> get through this. It doesn't mean we all have to agree, but that we agree to move forward. --wendy At 03:02 PM 5/11/01 , Anne Pemberton wrote: >Matt, > > Your basic logic has a serious flaw that is probably contributing to > failure to comprehend the similarities I'm presenting... > >You said: >MM No, it isn't. Not in the same way alt text is necessary to >blind users. > >Without alt text, 100% of blind users will fail to receive information from > >an image. The presence of alt text on an image makes access to data less > >than impossible. The same is not true of illustrations: 100% of the > >cognitively disabled will not fail to receive a document that's not > >illustrated. > >First, lets keep both examples in the apple orchard ... > >You are correct that without alt text, 100% of blind users will fail to >receive information from an image. > >It is equally correct that without graphics, 100% of non-readers will fail >to receive information from text ... > >Or, we can move to the orange grove ... > > >100% of blind users will not fail to receive a document whether or not it >has alt text. > >and > >100% of non-readers will not fail to receive a document whether or not is >has a graphic. > >Do you understand where you err? Or do I need to illustrate the logic? > > Anne > > > > > >--- >Anne Pemberton >apembert@erols.com >apembert45@yahoo.com >apembert45@lycos.com >apembert@pen.k12.va.us > >http://www.erols.com/stevepem >http://www.geocities.com/apembert45 > >On Fri, 11 May 2001 09:00:25 > Matt May wrote: > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Anne Pemberton" <apembert45@lycos.com> > >> Lisa didn't just find the illustrations "nice", she found they helped > >her more quickly and efficiently process the content. I think that is the > >point you are missing, tho I've no clue why. This is not just about making > >the web "nice", or even "more friendly", tho there are some checkpoints that > >do no more than that already (such as synchronizing scripts). > > > >MM Synchronized text (WCAG1 1.4, WCAG2 1.2) allows deaf users to receive > >pure audio content in multimedia presentations. Synchronized auditory > >descriptions (1.3 in both) allow blind users to receive pure visual content > >in multimedia. Both of these are more than "nice" and "friendly". > > > >> The definition of priorities is that, for P1 priority, it needs to be > >necessary for a substantial number of users. This is the case with graphics > >and multi-media. > > > >MM No, it isn't. Not in the same way alt text is necessary to blind users. > >Without alt text, 100% of blind users will fail to receive information from > >an image. The presence of alt text on an image makes access to data less > >than impossible. The same is not true of illustrations: 100% of the > >cognitively disabled will not fail to receive a document that's not > >illustrated. > > > >P1 compliance doesn't make every web page a utopian paradise for blind > >users, either. All it does is make it less than impossible for everyone to > >receive the ones and zeroes such that their computer can present it to them. > >(This bears repeating: the _computer_, or rather the physical human > >interface device, is the dropoff point for most of the checkpoints. How it > >gets from the HID of the user's choice into his or her brain is not > >something that's easy to quantify.) > > > >What is necessary is the use of _good_ illustration through graphics and > >multimedia, and what is "good" is extremely dependent on the content being > >presented, and -- I'll say it again -- the _people_ who are producing the > >content. The number of people who are capable of creating illustrations, > >audio, motion video, or interactivity is extremely small relative to those > >who can produce text or HTML, and the subset who can do multimedia in a way > >that complements the text is a small fraction of that. You can require > >multimedia all day long, but if they don't have the tools (which are > >expensive) and the skills (which take months to build and years to master), > >what we'll get is a web full of silly, irrelevant clip art someone tacked on > >because we (or a tool like Bobby) said it's "accessible." > > > >I want to see guidelines that can be easily followed without significant > >retooling by content providers, and rules that are proven to increase access > >to people with all disabilities, but _without_ reducing usability for the > >rest of the users of the web. Forcing illustration and multimedia without > >regard to who is providing it or what it's being used for as a P1 is not the > >way to improve accessibility or usability to the web as a whole. > > > >> I'm not sure how "fairly common" it is to browse with images turned off... > >On this list, some folks say they use the web that way, but in my life away > >from this list, NO ONE I KNOW uses the web that way! Just as I don't know > >anyone in real life who uses television without the screen on, or listens to > >anything but music on the radio.... > > > >Blind users browse without the help of images, and watch TV without their > >eyes. That's pretty common. There is also a measurable percentage of the web > >who browse without images using Lynx, or by manually turning their images > >off to save download speed. > > > >- > >m > > > > > > >Get 250 color business cards for FREE! >http://businesscards.lycos.com/vp/fastpath/ -- wendy a chisholm world wide web consortium web accessibility initiative seattle, wa usa tel: +1 206.706.5263 /--
Received on Friday, 11 May 2001 16:54:49 UTC