- From: R. Dolloff <averil@concentric.net>
- Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 16:01:51 -0500
- To: Liam Quinn <liam@htmlhelp.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Liam Quinn wrote: >This issue points out one of my main bones of contention with the WAI and >the blind community. It seems that many accessibility experts and blind >users view the Web as a visual medium, and so they seek to describe Web >pages visually in the name of accessibility. I view the Web as an >information medium, neither visual nor non-visual since the presentation is >determined chiefly by the user and her browsing environment, with >suggestions from the author. >As an author, my goal is to provide Web pages so that each user feels that >the page is designed specifically for her, regardless of her abilities and >browsing environment at the time. If you were designing a page >specifically for an aural browser, you wouldn't include an image. For this >reason, I wouldn't want an aural user to hear ALT text like "[Snowflake]" >or "XYZ Company Logo". > >When we try to tell the aural user that "There's an image here", we're >saying that "This Web page is visual--it isn't made for you or your >browsing environment." I want to convince the aural user, and every other >user, that the page is designed specifically for her. This is true >accessibility and it's seamless. > >>The question of whether the graphic is gratuitous has been >>decided by the author, not the user. And then there are the blind web designers out here who LIKE knowing graphics are on a site and how they were used. I'm frequently altering my position too, as I basically agree with Liam, but this particular issue is "iffy," in my opinion, subject to the author's discretion. I maintain it's better to have too much information than not enough, particularly as web pages are often used as learning tools for others. Ree' Dolloff business: designs by dolloff - http://dbdweb.com personal: avenue averil - http://www.concentric.net/~Averil
Received on Monday, 4 May 1998 17:00:00 UTC