RE: REF 1.1a - Add definition to 1.1 for ability to be expressed in words

Gregg, the whole notion of "equivalence" is deeply problematic from any
kind of theoretical/philosophical standpoint (to say nothing of the
pragmatic issues!).  If we push it hard enough, there is no such thing
as a "text equivalent" for *any* non-text element-- and if you ask
people who do translation professionally (especially but not only
literary translation), there aren't even "text equivalents" for
*textual* elements.
 
No one really expects a textual description of a painting or a symphony
or an actual (or fictional) event to be an exact equivalent for the
lived experience.  And it may be that thinking in terms of *description*
actually drives the text farther away from equivalence: a poem or a
symphony might come closer to providing an equivalent *experience* to
that afforded by a painting.
 
There's also no way to test equivalence where accessibility is
concerned: a person who's blind has no way to tell if a given chunk of
text is or is not equivalent to a given image, because that person
doesn't have access to the image and so can't perform the comparison.
 
But-- given that full equivalence is impossible-- it's still vitally
important to require meaningful descriptions/text equivalents for
complex images and other non-textual elements, including works of art.
That's for the guidelines.  Techniques documents and examples will have
to do the work of modeling different ways of approaching the task, and
we'll have to get users who depend on those equivalents to give us some
feedback about which ones are most valuable.
 
John  
 
 

John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Institute for Technology & Learning
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.ital.utexas.edu <http://www.ital.utexas.edu/> 



-----Original Message-----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@wiscmail.wisc.edu] 
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 12:26 am
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: REF 1.1a - Add definition to 1.1 for ability to be
expressed in words



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.