- From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
- Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 20:00:26 -0500 (EST)
- To: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Adding a title (containing a translation) to the span (that is already > required by 3.1) is not restricting free speech It's *forced speech*, Lisa. Now, so is an alt text, but in that case we are not talking about translation, which is a very large bridge to cross. Essentially, once we start requiring translations, *there is no theoretical limit*. A Ukrainian-speaker could demand Ukrainian translations of your Hebrew pages, Lisa, lest they otherwise be "inaccessible." Unilingualism is not a disability. A particular detail of unilingualism-- that the unilingual person, disabled or not, cannot read another script-- is not so important that it overpowers the issue of required translation. Further: And aren't you *assuming* the author knows the translation? And that the adaptive technology can even render a title attribute in what you consider to be the base character set? > and will help people > with disabilities access the material on the web. If that were the only criterion, every draconian or cockamamie idea anyone ever came up with would become part of WCAG 2.0. Though I still hold out hope that will not actually have been true of WCAG 2.0. > I fail to see why this is controversial. Wilfully so, I suspect. > > -----Original Message----- Top-posting is an accessibility issue, Lisa. -- Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org Author, _Building Accessible Websites_ <http://joeclark.org/access/> | <http://joeclark.org/book/>
Received on Sunday, 8 February 2004 19:56:14 UTC