- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 09:58:31 -0700
- To: "Matt May" <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 09:34 AM 5/12/01 -0700, Matt May wrote: >There is a reason good multimedia is good multimedia There is a reason good text is good text. There is a reason good Websites are good Websites. The "requirement" to use alt-text also results in ineffective implementations thereof, same with "multimedia" - text is merely one aspect of multimedia, not some universally "good" method. People put useless stuff in alt to pass Bobby, I would presume, but we still "require" it. We spend hours crafting every syllable of something like WCAG and things like the QuickTips and other EO documents. That we don't put at least part of that time into the other *equally important* elements of what are, like it or not, multimedia presentations, is a sin and a shame. The earcons in http://rdf.pair.com/xguide.htm could be argued about as endlessly and effectively as the similar arguments about whether alt=" " or alt="" were acceptable or if the particular choices of words got the meanings across in a way acceptable to all users. Same with all the proposed illustrations. The details of their selection and presentation should concern us - IMO it is no longer sane to pretend that there's no excuse for them to be there. Stuff like this works and *MUST* be part of our effort and *MUST* be part of our recommendation. Does this equate to a proposal that there have to be drawings to illustrate each concept? No. -- Love. ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Saturday, 12 May 2001 12:56:54 UTC