Re: Checkpoint 3.4 again

At 5:34 PM -0400 2001/7/28, Anne Pemberton wrote:
>Joe,
>	No matter the arguments presented, text is an element on a 
>page, no more, and no less. It needs an equivalent. Does the 
>equivalent need to be a graphic? No, but a graphic is probably the 
>easiest to do, other than a sound file of someone reading the text. 
>Animations and multimedia can also be equivalents to text .... 
>Wendy has suggested that links could be illustrations, so a link 
>could be the equivalent of a block of text if the link leads to 
>something that illustrates the text ...

Another good approach to "alternatives for text" is to provide valid
keywords -- not just for the entire page, but metadata that applies only
to a particular section as well.  (Note to self:  Recommend this to WAI
PF for XMLGL consideration.)

Using those keywords, an indexed library of graphics, and a reasonably
intelligent keyword-matching algorithm, you could probably get some
good alternative content.  This could be done in-browser, on the
server, or via a proxy.  Note that it's not quite the same as relying
on "text", as the keywords are just a textual -expression- of a
particular idea, and the actual output to the user could be in a
variety of forms, including graphical.

(For fun, imagine if you will a proxy which scans the keywords and/or
content and matches them against an indexed library of background
sounds -- under user control, of course.  This could provide a sense
of "tone" to a page analogous to color choices in visual design.)

--Kynn

-- 
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
Technical Developer Liaison
Reef North America
Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network
Tel +1 949-567-7006
________________________________________
BUSINESS IS DYNAMIC. TAKE CONTROL.
________________________________________
http://www.reef.com

Received on Sunday, 29 July 2001 00:58:53 UTC