RE: 3.1: Proposal with links to Guide docs

> 1. Joe's comment responds to my *description* of certain elements of the
> proposal, not to the proposal itself. My comments lumped together some
> very complex issues  that are addressed in different success criteria at
> different levels of conformance.

Granted.

However, my objection remains substantially unaddressed. Of course many 
texts have provided summaries. I even do it from time to time. That's 
great, and who could object to that?

However, the skills necessary to draw or record sound or music are rather 
different from writing. They are a barrier to people with disabilities 
themselves, and you also enter a cycle of providing text equivalents for 
non-text equivalents.

I certainly accept Lisa's clarification--

<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0454.html>

-- that these sorts of things could be automatically transformed with the 
right markup language and browser, but that pretty much puts it out of the 
realm of the Web-content author. It becomes a user-agent problem.

This, sadly, and take this *any way you want*, is another of those 
ridiculous yet unkillable ideas that give the Working Group a bad name. 
You're going to be laughed out of town if you expect a half a million 
LiveJournal authors to illustrate their content just to pass WCAG.

-- 

     Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
     Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
       --This.
       --What's wrong with top-posting?

Received on Wednesday, 11 May 2005 18:53:11 UTC