- From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>
- Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 12:05:57 -0700
- To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Tried the site, entered Christopher Columbus, and presented with a choice of source types, but all provided text only. Not a picture of the dude anywhere in the choices ... If the site presented a choice/s to see pictures/portrait, it would be much more useful to a wider audience than currently. Yes, collecting the illustrations would be a fair degree of work, but not any more onerous that collecting all the text entries that are used ... There are search engines that give you a choice of looking for "images" under your topic ... It is do-able... Did notice recently that sites that supply free onine graphics ask that you download them, and upload to your own site rather than link to their site to display the graphics. Anne At 09:48 AM 10/8/00 -0400, Al Gilman wrote: >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 >> > > Anne L. Pemberton http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Pav/Academy1 http://www.erols.com/stevepem/Homeschooling apembert@crosslink.net Enabling Support Foundation http://www.enabling.org
Received on Sunday, 8 October 2000 11:18:38 UTC