RE[2]: REF 1.1a - Add definition to 1.1 for ability to be expressed in words

At 12:45 PM 2003-07-11, Paul wrote:
>  I think that the limiting factor
>is the author's INTENT AND FUNCTION for the non-text content, rather than
>the author's ability to express it in words.

Yes.  It is both a more appropriate "limiting factor" and it is a much more
"enabling factor" if that is the question posed to the author (team).

In business situations where the author is creating content on behalf of
an organization, the question shifts to "what should the visitor reasonably
be able to expect from the site and page" but this is a modest adjustment.
Communication happens when the author and visitor perceptions of content
and utility correspond to a high goodnes-of-fit.

It often does take some structured process to get past the point where the
author's self-concept of their intent is simply "I want them to see it" or
"I want them to hear it."  This is the stuff of the coaching that the authoring
tools work on.

Here is a reference to the case study where I try to exemplify the kind of
Q&A that go on in the process of verbalizing the right kind of text
alternative.

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/wai-tech-comments/2001Aug/0001.html

Al

>We've identified 2 potential problems with 1.1, and the phrase "that can be
>expressed in words":
>
>1. with the phrase as it is, it's a loophole that anyone can get around.
>2. without some limiting phrase, it may appear to be an unattainable goal,
>causing people to give up and do nothing.
>
>It may be good to have some conditional statement in 1.1, but I think we've
>chosen the wrong focus for that statement. I think that the limiting factor
>is the author's INTENT AND FUNCTION for the non-text content, rather than
>the author's ability to express it in words.
>
>Let's take the specific example of music again:
>
><quote>... (a score does not recreate a performance). </quote>
>
>My response:
>
>The ability to recreate a musical performance from the score depends on your
>musical training. Having worked with professional musicians, I can say that
>many of them can indeed recreate the musical performance in their head
>simply by seeing the score.
>
>If the musical score were marked up in MusicML or some other markup
>language, this would be a adequate for some audiences. Taking into account
>the expertise of the audience, this would constitute an effective text
>equivalent.
>
>I've even known deaf musicians who were able to read music superbly. Their
>internal perception of music is surely much different than mine, since I can
>hear, but the score does commuicate the music to them in a way that they can
>understand within their physical limitations. For these deaf musicians, as
>for the hearing musicians, the score would be an adequate textual
>representation.
>
>For audiences who have not had musical training, the score will not be
>adequate, I agree, BUT, I think that the important point is to look at the
>author's intention. Unless the author is simply playing music for the
>listener's enjoyment (e.g. an online radio station), the author usually has
>a specific purpose for including the music in the Web content. For example,
>a music history professor would post different types of music to point out
>the differences in their style. Having taken a music history class, I know
>that the differences can be described in words, because our textbook did
>just that.
>
>In the case of online radio, the author's intention is to play music for
>people to hear.  The author does not intend to offer any interpretation, to
>make any comparison, or to make any point at all, really. The music is there
>for listening enjoyment and nothing more. This is the limitation. I think
>that it would be ridiculous for us to require the author to provide a
>detailed musicological analysis of every song played on the radio, but not
>on the basis that it is impossible, rather on the basis that it does not
>suit the author's intention.
>
>Another example: If the music is just in the background, with no direct
>relationship to the author's purpose, I would think that no textual
>equivalent would be required. It would be analagous to a null alt attribute
>(alt=""). The absence of a text equivalent is consistent with the author's
>intention in this case.
>
>*MY CONCLUSION is that the limiting factor is INTENT and PURPOSE, not the
>impossibility of describing something in text. *
>
>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

Received on Friday, 11 July 2003 14:03:07 UTC