- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 07:48:05 -0700
- To: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 09:06 AM 9/16/01 -0400, Anne Pemberton wrote: >Provide image equivalents for text A question remains not so much about whether this can even be done - for example the instant sentence might have as its "image equivalent" some depiction of an author pasting an "appropriate" image next to the words "provide image..." - but more as to whether authors can be expected to be able to do that. I could not do it effectively. Am I therefore excluded from the game? I can write some text, as I am now doing here, but I have neither time/skill/talent to "provide image equivalent" for this very text. If I put this email exchange on a Web site about the problems of complying with guidelines, I could not comply with this guideline therein.The notion that this can be expected/required/done is IMO totally vain. In my heart/mind I know that such multi-modal reinforcements of messages would mostly work IF DONE APPROPRIATELY, but I cannot do it. Just the simplistic effort at http://rdf.pair.com/xguide.htm (wherein I used "free icons" and sound snippets) was a major undertaking for what seems a trivial result. Do the icons or earcons help? I dunno. They certainly aren't "image equivalents for text", they merely decorate, hopefully evocatively. To conform to the proposed checkpoint I would have to become someone I am currently not and I would thereby be prohibited from "eating my own dog food" insofar as putting a conformance logo on this page. -- Love. EACH UN-INDEXED/ANNOTATED WEB POSTING WE MAKE IS TESTAMENT TO OUR HYPOCRISY
Received on Sunday, 16 September 2001 10:45:25 UTC