- From: Nick Traenkner <nick@kentinfoworks.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 16:13:33 -0500
- To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
- CC: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
- Message-ID: <3655DB7C.D1B65210@kentinfoworks.com>
Kynn Bartlett wrote: > Sometimes when trying to explain the importance of accessibility > to web authors, and they run out of reasonable arguments against > it :), they produce something akin to the following: > > But I'm an artiste'! My work is purely graphical and > means nothing to someone is blind; they are not the > target audience for my gallery of visual artwork, and > so I don't need to be concerned with them. > > What do you feel is the best response to this -- or are they > right? First off, I believe the gallery would be responsible formaking it accessible (or enforcing it's accessibility on the designer) But I don't think its the designer's call. It is certainly not the artist whose work is being translated to the web's responsibility Rarely is the WWW a medium in itself. An Escher print might not be accessible as it is, but have a narrator describe the work and now it is. Or is it? Visual artists might produce an image and it may be served over the WWW. But is it their responsibility to add test descriptions? Let's say an artist created a work that is heavily textured so the blind can interpret elements of it. Let's say the painting is photographed and it's image places on the web. Even if the image is described, the texture is lost. Is this accessible? I hate to say it, but if you think about the web like television, where it becomes the publisher's, not the artists, responsability to alt-tag the work the issue may be easier to see (not that television does a good job at accessibility) but the idea that the medium of the WWW is not a medium like acrylic paint is a medium (in this example), but media like broadcast that serves groups of people with all sorts of needs and wants. Now, lets talk about the other case, where the medium IS the web. I am a self-learning student of what might be called 'net-art', art disseminated over the internet, which uses the WWW as a medium. A medium like acrylic paint is a medium. My paint is hypertext, images, HTML code, javascript, audio files, and a multitude of other non-accessible media/conventions. I will admit that nine times out of ten my net-art is not accesssible, and this is a problem. A symphony can be felt by the deaf, a painting or sculpture can be felt by the blind. If I write a hypertext poem that uses background colors and images, not to make the page visually appealing, but to communicate voice and tone to the reader (red might be angry, blue might be calm) there is no way a blind user can touch the screen and get those impressions. If I include a bit of text on an alternate version, the rythym is changed and the poem becomes something else. Is multimedia art inaccessible? What about kinetic light-based art? Like art that is made up of lasers? Is this accessible? Here's an opposing question intended to open the problem up. Let's say I have developed a work for speech-reader, a work that uses the tonal qualities of such a device to create art. The work is delivered over the WWW. Is this work accessible? Sure, for those with the specific speech reader I worked with- or any reader if that's what I intended. But to a user without, no. the work would appear to be not accessible. The graphic designer who builds commercial web pages and claims "I'm an artist, and I don't care about the blind" is missing the point about the purpose of the Web- to deliver content. -nick -- Nick Traenkner, design manager Kent Infoworks: 131 Moulton Hall, Kent Ohio 44242 Notes On Hypertext Literature http://kentinfoworks.com/people/nick/ht.html
Received on Friday, 20 November 1998 16:14:30 UTC