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

good points John...
 
perhaps the word we should use is "summary" ?
 
Gordon.

-----Original Message-----
From: John M Slatin [mailto:john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 10:31 AM
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


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.

Received on Friday, 11 July 2003 10:39:25 UTC