- From: Charles F. Munat <chas@munat.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:32:09 -0700
- To: "'Anne Pemberton'" <apembert@crosslink.net>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Anne Pemberton wrote: "I return here from time to time to help one or another person here understand that accessibility must include and direct graphics and multimedia because they are essential to folks with learning, reading, and cognitive disabilities. I am working with a broader definition of what accessibility means, and who it can help." Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I do not see how restricting access for those with low-bandwidth connections or older technology constitutes "a broader definition of what accessibility means." And while I commend you for trying to help the rest of us on this list to understand the importance of graphics, I'm not sure to whom you are referring. Is there anyone on this list who thinks that a text-only site is better than a site with graphics? I think not. What many here have argued is that the graphics should not be gratuitous, and more specifically, that text should be text and not text-in-graphics. How exactly does making a picture of text enhance its accessibility? Most of the sites I've seen that use Flash or Shockwave or Java to "enhance" the user's experience use it for marketing purposes. What does this have to do with learning, reading, or cognitive disabilities? And while I'm sure that pictures can help, I have grave doubts about how helpful multimedia is. When I was a child, multimedia was called "filmstrips." For the most part we listened to the teacher, read, looked at pictures, and discussed. And we did homework. Today's kids have far more technology at their fingertips. But are they any smarter? Have you read the studies? Television is a prime example of "multimedia." Certainly, television has the capability to help us to better understand our world. But after a half century of TV, we've become less knowledgeable, not more so. This thread began as "How to convince businesses to be accessible . . . " All this talk about multimedia benefiting those with cognitive disabilities is really a red herring. This isn't about helping people with disabilities to learn more. Is anyone on this list suggesting that we shouldn't build sites to help those with cognitive disabilities? Of course not. But the Internet is not a substitute for good teachers or for cultural values. Helping children to learn is important, but far more important is ensuring that all adults have an equal opportunity to participate in society. The "digital divide" is no joke, and bandwidth and download time are most emphatically accessibility issues. No, this is about giving corporations the go ahead (not that they're waiting for it) to load up their Web sites with hype and marketing flash. Business wants to sell us, and they know that you do not sell with reason, but by persuading people to suspend reason. That's hard to do with text alone. But add thumps and roars and moving, colorful graphics and suddenly people are mesmerized. And, hey, it's especially wonderful for selling sugary cereals, soda pop, violent video games, and even cigarettes to kids. Business cares about one thing: profit. There are no altruistic businesses. And the only way businesses are going to make their Web sites accessible is when not doing so affects the bottom line. You can try to sell them on the "buying power" of the disabled community. Good luck. In my opinion, the only way they'll be convinced to build accessible Web sites is the same way they were convinced to build accessible facilities: with regulation and public pressure. And for those who will shriek that regulation will stymie the growth of the Internet, I say: Oh, please! Business recognizes a gold mine when it sees one. The Web has become a juggernaut, and nothing, NOTHING, is going to stop it now. As participation in the public debate in our society becomes more and more dependent on Internet access, and as sites become more bandwidth-intensive, those without Internet connections or with limited bandwidth will become further disenfranchised. And isn't that the real goal of accessibility - to allow every adult full citizenship in our society? Sincerely, Charles F. Munat, Seattle, Washington
Received on Thursday, 19 October 2000 14:53:11 UTC