Re: Graphic Designers work - potential for WCAG?

----- Original Message -----
From: "William Loughborough" <love26@gorge.net>
> At 09:02 PM 5/22/01 -0700, Matt May wrote:
> >If there's going to be a multimedia explanation of the guidelines,
hanging
> >it off of a structure built around HTML is not the way to do it.
>
> Perhaps not *the* way, but *a* way?

Perhaps *a* way, but my point is that it's not the *best* way in this case.
The best way is to use all the benefits of other media when they're used,
not to shoehorn them into an HTML document as a rule. If we're trying to
reach as many people as possible, as Anne and Jonathan have said repeatedly,
we've got to do it without words, and the illustrations so far do not stand
on their own.

(And a graphic image _cannot_ explain these guidelines adequately, which was
my point about complex text vs. complex illustration. What I did _not_ say
was anything like "for all content," "for all text," or "for all
illustration." I said "in many cases," this being one, which underscores my
position that the inclusion of multimedia needs to be something that is the
decision of the content producer.)

> Any concrete proposals about ways to do it that aren't "hung off a
> structure built around markup language" would be gratefully accepted.

I made a proposal right off the bat: make an SVG-based presentation as an
adjunct to the HTML guidelines.

> Even dictionaries are illustrated, whether I think that's an absurd waste
> of space or not.

They're illustrated very sparsely, though. If illustration is as easy and
succinct as is being argued, wouldn't a dictionary be full of them?

-
m

Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2001 11:16:38 UTC