- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@wiscmail.wisc.edu>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 00:26:05 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
- Message-id: <000a01c3476c$ed72ce30$056fa8c0@USD320002X>
Sorry Paul, I have to both agree and disagree with you on this one. Yes - you can use words to at least partially describe things. But they are not equivalent unless you can use the words to reconstruct the original- at least functionally. This is possible for many things - but art and musical performances are not among them. (a score does not recreate a performance). We will have to work on this one carefully to not create a loophole - but also not create unattainable goals. Too tired to figure this one out now. But we need to do this very carefully. Gregg -- ------------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr. Director - Trace R & D Center University of Wisconsin-Madison -----Original Message----- From: Paul Bohman [mailto:paulb@cpd2.usu.edu] Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 4:34 PM To: gv@trace.wisc.edu; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: RE: REF 1.1a - Add definition to 1.1 for ability to be expressed in words I have never liked the phrase "that can be expresed in words." The truth is that anything can be expressed in words. Musicologists can describe symphonies. Art critics can describe paintings. Even your ordinary person can describe both of these. It may be true that the description does not substitute for the experience of actually hearing a symphony or of seeing a painting in person, but that is beside the point. Anything can be expressed in words, no matter how inadequately. Like John, I don't wish to provide a loophole through which almost anything can slip. Almost anything can be said to be impossible to express in words if you mean that you want the reader to experience the description in exactly the same way that the author does. I could argue that it is completely impossible to give alt text to any image that would truly substitute for not being able to see the image. No one can write anything that would allow an individual who is blind from birth to be able to visualize anything in exactly the same way that a sighted person can. It simply can't be done. A person who has never heard a sound will never experience music the way that a hearing person does, but you can always describe music. In most cases, Web developers aren't going to post a link to a symphony and say nothing about it. They usually have a reason for linking to it. Maybe they want the listener to hear the difference between Barroque and Impressionistic music. The differences can be explained in words. Maybe the developer is just trying to sell CDs by giving sample music clips. The selling points of the music can be explained. No matter what the purpose is, it can be explained somehow. I would like to either drop the phrase "that can be expressed in words". The important part of the checkpoint (making the function or information available) is already expressed in the current wording (minus the "expressed in words" phrase): "All non-text content has a text equivalent of the function or information that the non-text content was intended to convey. [was 1.1] Paul Bohman Technology Coordinator WebAIM (Web Accessibility in Mind) www.webaim.org Center for Persons with Disabilities www.cpd.usu.edu Utah State University www.usu.edu -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 1:56 PM To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: REF 1.1a - Add definition to 1.1 for ability to be expressed in words REF 1.1a - Add definition to 1.1 for ability to be expressed in words The phrase "ability to be expressed in words" is never defined. Suggest that in the definitions section, a new definition be added which would read: Ability to be expressed in words This refers to content that can be expressed accurately and unambiguously in a reasonable number of words (for example, diagrams, charts, illustrations, etc.) Content such as a musical performance or visual artwork is considered "content that can not be expressed in words," since this type of content relies heavily on the visual (or auditory) experience.
Received on Friday, 11 July 2003 01:27:35 UTC