W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 1999

Re: Illustrations on web sites (was RE: Self-voicing browsers)

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 1999 08:22:11 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: <wcrotts@arches.uga.edu>, "'Web Accessibility Initiative'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

	Thanks for your comments. I am discovering the difficulties with using
existing photos or illustrations around copyright laws, and realize that
the web author has to "own" pictures that are used. 

	It is an accessibility issue when you look past the needs of "normal"
children, who will someday be able to access text without illustrations.
Consider  the adults with cognitive disabilities who are dependent on
illustrations to understand text (and those who cannot process text at all
and need illustrations *instead of* text), and this becomes an
accessibility issue. 

	Web designers need to be made aware that including illustrations is as
basic to an informational website as properly marked up text. It may not be
"easy" to find needed illustrations that can be used, but it is essential
to make the web accessible to those who need them. The idea that the web
can be made "more accessible" by decreasing the use of graphics or
multimedia needs to be replaced by the reality that graphics and multimedia
are essential to make the web accessible to all persons with disabilities. 



At 10:04 PM 10/16/1999 -0400, Wayne Crotts wrote:
>> 	I am getting frustrated trying to find web content an 8 yo
>> can use without
>> someone reading it to him, and dismayed by the lack of illustrations with
>Pardon me for saying this, but it sounds like you are frustrated by
>copyright law.  Most enthusiasts or others cannot put illustrations and
>photographs on their web site without getting 'cease and desist' letters
>from publishers who hold rights to those illustrations and photographs.
>In general, U.S. copyright law is particular as to the use of copyright
>material.  Even  converting copyright material to be alternatively
>accessible like converting it to Braille or to audio-tape is prohibited (at
>least as interpreted by our university's legal affairs team).
>I say all this to suggest that this is not so much an accessibility issue as
>a content and editorial issue.

Anne L. Pemberton
Enabling Support Foundation
Received on Sunday, 17 October 1999 09:57:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:06 UTC