- From: <lwatson@tetralogical.com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 13:29:21 +0100
- To: Gregg Vanderheiden RTF <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <10555525-fc5c-471c-be5d-5157e6add576@tetralogical.com>
It may be of interest to know that the W3C Team is thinking about the systemic impact of AI on the Web, and that it'll be a topic for discussion at the AC meeting next week. As a result, I filed two issues earlier this week that relate (to a greater or lesser extent) to the point you make Gregg. https://github.com/w3c/ai-web-impact/issues/24 https://github.com/w3c/ai-web-impact/issues/25 On 04/04/2024 08:02, Gregg Vanderheiden RTF wrote: > > > I think much of our work is not forward-looking. > > We will soon have AI that can do a better job of text alternatives > than humans can for example. > And then it is unclear why we would require authors to do all this work. > This applies to a LOT of things. > > I think maybe we should be considering a new structure to our > requirements > > *Need: * When people cannot see a picture clearly or at all - it is > important that they be able to percieve the information presented in > the picture by having it presented in another form such as text, > speech or braille. If it is in e-text it can be easily converted into > any sensory form (visual text, speech, braille or sign). > > *Outcome: * Where the publicly available AI is not able to generate a > [good] text alternative for pictures, then an author-generated text > alternative is provided. > > > This does contain the word [good] since we don’t want this to apply > before it is ready — and it certainly is not ready today. > but I would bet even money (or 3 to 1 money) that before WCAG 3 is out > — autogenerated text alternatives will be better than 80%-90% of > humans in a controlled test of humans vs AI in describing pictures. > Even the intent of pictures (though sighted people have only the > picture to guess the intent from so it is not clear why blind > people can’t guess the intent). ALSO - auto-descriptions can > provide layered descriptions — and even queryable descriptions. > > * Picture of woman playing voilin > o Woman is seated and wearing formal gown > + woman has darker skintone, black hair worn long and > appears to be around 30-40 years old > o Query - what kind of formal dress? > o Query - what kind of chair > o Query - tell me more about their hairstyle > o Query - tell me more about the backgound of he picture > > > the queryable alternatives are already possible today — and I’m not > sure if the AI won’t be better than 80-90 of image describers by next year > > > > We really need to think about what we are doing — what we want to > achieve — and the best way to get there. > > If browser mfgrs added these capabilities to their browsers - the cost > to add the capability may be less than the costs saved by of JUST > THEIR OWN web authors at their companies — much less the costs saved > across all companies. > > > We need to talk and think > > Gregg > > -- Léonie Watson (she/her) Director https://tetralogical.com/
Received on Thursday, 4 April 2024 12:29:26 UTC