- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 09:48:20 -0400
- To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Here's a thought experiment. Start with what is available in GuruNet <http://www.gurunet.com/>. This is a universal "Whazzat?" [What is that?] tool for text on the screen. It appears to use screen reader technology because it is not limited to Web stuff. Think what it could do if it understood a user preference for imagery (for all I yet know, it does). The key is getting the corpus of graphics associated with relevant text. But this is the metadata version of LONGDESC in a nutshell. One can get software to invert the relation. Al See also <http://ptech.wsj.com/archive/ptech-20001005.html>. Walt likes it. At 01:11 PM 2000-10-08 +0100, jonathan chetwynd wrote: >If you are using Explorer and windows98 you might like to visit: >http://www.signbrowser.org.uk/2k/testing/champagne.html >can anyone advise me how prevalent this type of linkage is acroos the web,. >I cannot say i have come across it. I had imagined that security issues >might have precluded usage of links to the hard drive and never bothered to >try it, how lazy can one get. Of course it does not help if you dont have >the library, and one still needs a possiblity to downlaod if the default is >absent. > >I recognise that W3C/WAI does not have a magic wand, however if we could >design a suitable document identifying what was needed, it would help other >standard setters to identify their requirements. We need an easy to use and >cheap solution, similar to 'alt tags' in implementation. The web page author >might not even need to be aware of the change, though WAI will need to push >the use of plain english for the forseeable future. > >My intention was both to not define the problem too tightly and thus allow >others to express their current understanding, and enquire what efforts >WAI/W3C (including members and the web) is making to ensure that personal >graphics libraries might be as accessible as character fonts. This does not >require the authorization or even design of a 'standard graphics font'. >There is absolutely no need to tie this project up in expensive and >unnessary text or applications. Every time one selects a graphic by whatever >means, a conversion from text(ok this could be binary) to graphic is taking >place. > >I would hope we could identify, what changes are essential to allow the use >of a local database of graphics and yet retain the advantages of the web? >Are we sure we need a change to HTTP and could we define it? > >Imagine if we had to design a browser that added alt text, the problem seems >insurmountable yet we know another way was found. Designing a browser that >displays a known graphic with each word, is simple and solves the problem >but unfortunately many of the benefits of the web are lost. It remains an >'excluded' product, > >If standard graphics libraries are to be used, can we help define the >problems and make it easier for library creators to implement. >The libraries need to be editable by the user(or carer), unlike standard >character fonts. Yet this can create chaos... > >If the local desktop is missing graphics ultimately something like AKAMAI >might be required. Most LD users might be happy in the first case if some >graphics were missing, or slow to download. > >It might need the design of a particular browser similar to lynx in its >limitations. >eg: selected download of graphics, and 0-30 words per page limits(see Dr >Seuss). >or would this also exclude unnecessarily. > >I probably could go on, but my wife has been very patient this morning, our >guest are arriving any minute and realistically does this make any sense? > >jonathan chetwynd > >jc@signbrowser.org.uk >IT teacher (learning difficulty) >& accessibility consultant >
Received on Sunday, 8 October 2000 09:25:46 UTC