RE: [320] Ability to be expressed in words

On Thursday, August 21, 2003, at 10:55 AM, Joe Clark wrote:
>> WAI and WCAG WG peck away at picayune peripheral issues, tending to
get
>> even those wrong, and never quite twig to the fact that their central
>> themes are even more wrong.


On Friday, August 22, 2003, at 17:47, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
> "The current concept meets needs.  A replacement
> must either meet those same needs, or somehow prove that those needs
> don't really exist after all."


As the newcomer to the WG I think I have some level of objectivity to
whatever issues exist between Joe and the list.

My take on what Joe is saying is this:

If we try and force people to provide an alternative, which is
"expressed in words", to complex non-text content we run the risk of
alienating content providers from other more attainable goals which are
perhaps more immediately useful.

Being a fan of Tufte myself, and having some background in Information
Architecture, I sympathise with the problems associated with displaying
complex information (and often raw data) in a meaningful, or at least
digestible, form. I would suggest that in their enthusiasm to provide
the best possible accessibility standards the working group may be
setting goals which are uneconomic or simply too difficult for content
providers.

As a web developer who advocates (as we all do) standards compliance it
is plain that getting people to follow such standards as XHTML is
difficult enough. If we then compare XHTML to WCAG; content providers
are upset (not through any fault of ours) because accessibility, being a
subset of usability, is not something one can just automate, it requires
thought and human appraisals. As such it seems critical to the success
of the WCAG, and hence the WAI, that the recommendations we purpose are
achievable goals. Perhaps more importantly they should be perceived by
content providers as achievable goals.

I do openly admit that there are two levels of compliance in the current
WCAG 2.0 draft, and I am keen for us to explore all options before we
discount them. However if most content providers feel threatened by a
recommendation that appears restrictive and is not open and shut (as
XHTML is), overly zealous rules will only serve to further the view that
standards of accessibility are unachievable.

I know this does not answer the question Kynn effectively posed of "What
other alternatives can you give?" but maybe it posses a more poignant
one, "What alternatives at all can we persuade content providers to
give?"


Tom Croucher

Co-founder Netalley Networks
(http://www.netalleynetworks.com),
BSc(Hons) Computing Student / Information Services Staff University of
Sunderland
(http://www.sunderland.ac.uk),
Accessibility Co-ordinator Plone CMS
(http://www.plone.org)

Received on Saturday, 23 August 2003 10:10:05 UTC