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

More or less what Joe said. (Taking account of the difference in writing
style - is that something that can be expressed in words?)

the words are an atttempt to provide something functionally similar, much as
some illustration is an attempt to provide something functionally similar.
The idea that there is a true equivalent is generaly not true (an exception
could be argued for common icons, but I wouldn't be prepared to bet on the
results of the argument).

cheers

Chaals

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Joe Clark wrote:

>
>>The phrase "ability to be expressed in words" is never defined.
>
>It shouldn't even be in there. WAI, as ever, believes that the only
>true Web sites are those filled to the margins with words! words!
>words!
>
>I don't support an exemption for, say, videos of symphony orchestras
>playing. Anyone with access to American TV can watch _Great
>Performances_ on PBS to see how amenable even wordless music is to
>captioning. You don't have to add a *lot* of captions, but it isn't
>inimical to the entire procedure.
>
>>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
>
>"Accurately and unambiguously"?
>
>Ever tried interpreting a contract?
>
>You realize this means that somone could come along-- probably a
>proponent of a certain disability group-- and accuse the page author
>of inaccurately and ambiguously expressing his or her content? That
>would be another way of saying the author's claimed conformance is
>untrue. And where would a discussion like that end?
>
>>  (for example, diagrams, charts, illustrations, etc.)
>
>Those are the canonical visual forms that *cannot* be summed up in
>words! words! words!
>
>I wonder in what year WAI is ever going to figure out that people use
>"diagrams, charts, illustrations" for a reason. A picture is worth
>well more than a thousand words. You can crunch thousands of data
>points in a log scale that brilliantly and quickly communicates the
>relationships among the data in a graph. You simply cannot be assured
>that such a relationship, or set of relationships (Cf. charts with
>multiple axes and error bars), can be epitomized in words.
>
>"Diagrams, charts, illustrations" are not bad habits or deficiencies
>that must be legislated out of existence. They are not a weakness of
>Web content that WAI must grapple with, like some kind of disease. It
>is incontrovertible that certain "diagrams, charts, illustrations"
>cannot be made functionally equivalent in text. *That's why we
>illustrate*.
>
>>  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.
>
>Well, so do movies, TV, and video, and we caption those pretty well.
>
>
>

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  tel: +61 409 134 136
SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe         fax(france): +33 4 92 38 78 22
 Post:   21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia    or
 W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

Received on Friday, 11 July 2003 21:15:59 UTC