Re: The visual Web vs. seamless accessibility (was Re: RIT - Javascript)

At 08:41 PM 5/4/98 -0400, Liam Quinn wrote:
>At 06:24 PM 04/05/98 -0600, Kathy Seven Williams wrote:
>>I hate being forced to go to a text only version of a web site just so I
>>can avoid Java buttons and be able to navigate.
>
>LQ::  You shouldn't have to.  With seamless accessibility, all you do is
>disable Java and you're left with a usable alternative (as the content of
>the APPLET element).

	If I disable JAVA in some places I must be I am then told to go away and
get a browser that is JAVA capable. Now I realize that in the best of all
possible worlds when all is right with access this won't be the case but
for now, it is, too often, and so i must go text only as the version
provided for me to access. 
>
>KSW::
>>I resent being shoved
>>off to the text only interpretation where it is then determined that since
>>I'm using text only I certainly have no interest in the graphics and
>>therefore I am told by an alt tag that an image is "A PICTURE," "logo,"
>>"image," or some other totally non-informative description.
>
>LQ::  With seamless accessibility, the ALT attribute provides a replacement
>for the image, not a description of it.  The TITLE attribute gives a title
>for the image, typically in the form of a short description.

	Are you capitalizing seamless accessibility? I'm not sure what this term
is meant to mean. I encounter ALT tags that say everything from IMAGE
(that's informative) to "snowflakes". what I am saying is I'd rather it say
snowflakes or family portrait rather than "picture" some do, some don't. I
want to know if there are snowflakes even if i am supposedly just listening
because I have been put into listening mode unwillingly.

>

K7 
kseven@utah-inter.net
http://home.utah-inter.net/kseven/

Received on Monday, 4 May 1998 21:04:07 UTC