- From: Joe Clark <joeclark@contenu.nu>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 13:42:48 -0400
- To: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>, Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 13:20 -0400 2001.07.28, Anne Pemberton wrote: > Joe, all elements on a page need an equivalent, not just the >non-text elements. Text is an element and it needs an equivalent, >like all the other elements. 3.4 is the only place this is >addressed, and it doesn't do the deed. There is no parallel between adding an alt, title, or longdesc to an image, applet, or frame and attempting to draw a picture for every single extended paragraphs of exposition. We are all in favour of increased accessibility for learning-disabled persons. However, it is impossible to create access equivalent to that enjoyed by blind and visually-impaired people. It is easy and simple to make a page with graphics accessible to the blind. It is taxing and in many cases impossible to make a page with text accessible to the dyslexic. The two tasks are not parallel or equivalent. The intent certainly is. The principles underlying accessibility remain universal. There is nothing especially bad or good about the blind or the dyslexic, or any other disabled group, or nondisabled people. But it is intrinsic to the nature of the written word that it cannot always be rendered in a picture. The converse is true, and that's why accessibility for graphics is possible. Text does not need an equivalent. Text is the basis of written human communication. Graphics, images, and drawings are a different form (whether antecedent or subsequent is beside the point). Text is a *primitive*. The concepts expressed by the written word are often irreducible. In the grand tradition of leftist movements, I will now immediately be accused of a textist bias. It is not as though I have no knowledge of learning disabilities and their accessibility requirements. Nor am I allowing the fact that I am a better writer than illustrator cloud my judgement. Text is fundamentally different from graphics. You cannot use exactly converse techniques to make both accessible (add graphics to text; add text to graphics). The media are asymmetric. This asymmetry has the effect of rendering learning-disabled people at a disadvantage that the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines cannot correct by demanding that every author in every case include a picture. Among the vast litany of reasons why this is a bad idea is the simple fact that authors will ignore such a requirement. It is unrealistic, onerous, and laughable on its face. It will bring the entire enterprise of Web accessibility into disrepute. Further, adding graphics means you have to add more words. Every graphic at least has to carry an alt text. WCAG members must realize that there will never be agreement on requiring the use of graphics. There will never be a time when everyone can go along with it despite reservations they may hold. It is not as though this disagreement is small, the sort of thing that educated, well-intentioned people can agree to disagree on and live with whichever faction prevails. *Requiring* graphics is the most sweeping, excessive, ill-advised, and overblown suggestion ever countenanced by the Web Accessibility Initiative. A substantial number of people very strongly committed to accessibility everywhere (including the Web) will always be opposed to it. The idea itself won't work in practice and a lot of people will oppose it forever. It's a recipe for disaster. It's the sort of thing that accessibility advocates themselves will either disregard or actively campaign against. -- Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org Accessibility articles, resources, and critiques: <http://joeclark.org/access/>
Received on Saturday, 28 July 2001 13:43:34 UTC