1.1 revisited

Further consideration has convinced me that 1.1 is too specific

Although "1.1 Provide a text equivalent for all non-text content." is 
almost our "poster child", the fact is that text is not sacred and that 
this is a proper target for the same kinds of complaints that were lodged 
about WCAG 1 insofar as being too "technology-specific" in its use of HTML 
examples in what should have been a more abstract/general setting.

We really mean to encourage all repurposing of content, yes, even including 
the possibility of alternatives for text, no matter how counter-intuitive 
that seems to those of us immersed in and habituated to its use. Text is 
not sacred. It is not the first among equals.

"Provide alternative equivalents for all content" obviously needs a lot of 
expansion because this document itself flies in the face of such an edict.

Please, let's keep trying. Clearly the notions of "where appropriate" and 
"within reason" and such-like will come into play, but pretending that our 
goal is really widespread (Universal?) accessibility while couching it all 
in forms (like this!) that exclude so many people is somewhere between 
hypocritical and careless.


Received on Monday, 21 May 2001 09:20:37 UTC