- From: Paolo Graziani <graziani@iroe.fi.cnr.it>
- Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 15:43:03 +0100 (MET)
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Following the discussion about the access to art, I wish to present my point of view on this subject. I think that, in the discussion about accessibility, we have to establish a list of priorities and distinguish between barriers which prevent us from accessing pieces of information convertible into an alternative presentation, and other components which are not important for the navigation and that, in addition, require the subjective interpretation of a sighted person. The problem is more general than that of the accessibility of a hypertext. I am totally blind and I have this problem every days, when I walk in the street of my town (Florence). I'd like to have a description on demand of the environment: the landscape of the town, the sunset, buildings, churches, hills, the river and (why not?) the pretty girls walking in the streets. In the same time, I need information about the state of traffic lights, the location of crossing for pedestrians or of bus stops; I need to know the number of the bus arriving to the stop or the names of the stops, when I am inside a bus. Well, I can request the intervention of the local administration to provide crossing and buses with adequate electronic systems, or other solutions, to give me information enough to be able to move alone in the town but I thing that nobody can ensure to me a total accessibility to everything a sighted person can appreciate by looking about. Such a generalized request would not result reasonable. In the same way, the accessibility of graphical information represents a real problem for us when this component is crucial for the access to other part of a document or for the comprehension of the subject, but a "purely visual expression" of an artist can be neglected with no real loss of information. An artistic work is addressed to a specific sensorial modality and any alternative description results inadequate to produce the same effect on a person who cannot have direct access to it. Even a sophisticated description represents the interpretation of the narrator. It can be useful but it cannot replace the feeling produced by a direct perception. This difference can be dramatic in the case of abstract art. An artist cannot be charged of the problem of universal design. We cannot expect that the whole world is transformed according to our needs. On the other hand, other classes of disabled have requirements which often are not compatible with those of blind people. For example, a congenitally deaf person has difficulties, not only to access speech and sounds, but often also written information, in the case of too abstract subjects or complex document architecture, because of lack of language knowledge. And what about cognitive disabled and mentally retarded people? If authors or artists had have to take into account of all these problems, they probably would not be able to produce any piece of work. In conclusion, we have to accept some limitations to the general accessibility, by adopting a pragmatic approach. I agree with the statement "accessibility is a right and not a privilege" but we must carefully interpret such a principle. Paolo Graziani ****************************** Paolo Graziani Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche Istituto di Ricerca sulle Onde Elettromagnetiche "Nello Carrara" Via Panciatichi 64 I - 50127 Firenze tel +39 055 4235259, fax +39 055 4235204 E-mail: graziani@iroe.fi.cnr.it ******************************
Received on Wednesday, 9 December 1998 09:43:09 UTC