- From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>
- Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 07:50:51 -0700
- To: "Hiroshi Kawamura" <hkawa@attglobal.net>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
- Cc: <daisy@jsrd.or.jp>
Hiroshi, Thanks for the affirmation. I've never seen a SMIL application that works for this group, so I'm excited that you are developing a textbook using this approach. I have seen what Flash can do, but not SMIL ... Anne At 09:35 AM 10/20/00 +0900, Hiroshi Kawamura wrote: >Dear Anne: > >I am sharing the same interest with you regarding accessibility of web and >other publications for people with cognitive or mental disabilities. >The Japanese Society for Rehabilitation of Persons with Disability is a >member of the DAISY Consortium (www.daisy.org) representing Japan, and has >been working on implementation of DAISY for blindness community in Japan and >developing countries. In addition to our work for people with visual >impairements, we have been studying the needs of all other "print disabled" >people to adapt DAISY or physically accessible synchronized multimedia as a >technological solution. >We have started to develop DAISY version of "easy to read books" in >cooperation with dyslexia concerned organizations and parents organizations >of people with mental disabilities. We also produce a trial version of SMIL >textbook of science for the second grade of junior highschool. >I believe that WAI should address the needs of people with cognitive or >mentally disability. I see the SMIL applications like DAISY is most >promising and practical approach to make the web and all other XML >applications including Digital TV, eBook, WAP, I-mode, etc., accessible to >all at the moment. > >Best > >Hiroshi >--- >Hiroshi Kawamura (hkawa@attglobal.net) >Director, Information Center/JSRPD >Tel: +81-3-5273-0601, Fax:+81-3-5273-1523 > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Anne Pemberton" <apembert@crosslink.net> >To: "Wayne Myers-Education" <wayne.myers@bbc.co.uk>; <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> >Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 10:45 AM >Subject: Re: belittling designers, two kinds of accessibility > > >> Wayne, >> >> Your rant wasn't bad, in fact it was informative, though nothing new >> was said, but you said it well. >> >> The web is probably no longer what was originally envisioned, but the >> original vision was limited and didn't take into account either the >> mushrooming of bandwidth and technology, or the popularity that the web >has >> gained. At some time in the years to come, the "original" concept of the >> web will go away and the "horseless carriage" as a toy of the privileged >> will be gone ... it's almost there already! >> >> Unlike most on this list, I am very much "up" on cognitive issues because >> the needs in this area, especially as they affect education, have been my >> career. Because of long-term friendships in the adult disability >community, >> I have kept up with the issues and am part of this debate. I care very >> deeply about the part of the population who labor through life inspite of >> cognitive disabilities - they are friends and family a-many. I am proud of >> each one who conquers the financial and learning hurdles and climbs on >> board the Internet. I know that for each one, there was a different >reason, >> a different hope, a different need that brought them to this table. I >could >> bore this group to tears with specific stories of how things came to be. >> >> But I cannot say that any one of them came to the web expecting to cherish >> "documents" ... Should they be sent back to tv just because the >originators >> of the web didn't envision they would be here? Perhaps purists can argue >> so, but these people are too real to me for those arguments to have much >> flavor. >> >> My concern with seeing the cognitive issues included in WAI is because the >> published purpose is to insure the web accommodates all people with >> disabilities. WAI says it promises accessibility to ALL, and, when they're >> not damning business, promise the buying power of ALL disabled persons ... >> therefore, if it's called "accessibility for disabilities", it can't >ignore >> some disabilities just because they weren't originally expected to come >> onboard. >> >> On the gl list there is a member who is both personally disabled >> cogitively, but also works as a teacher to those with more severe >> cognitively disabled. It's likely that a complete "translation" from text >> to icons will sometime be technically possible, but these needs are the >> extreme. The middle stream need is to illustrate text. If this is >> expressed: Every web document would be illustrated to reach the widest >> audience. Saying that document must be illustrated is a long way from >> saying "if you have to put a graphic on your page do this ..." .... It >> should say: "Illustrate your page; do this for each illustration ..." >> Notice it doesn't say "decorate your page" ... Will there be "documents" >> that can't be illustrated? Sure! but is it because the content isn't worth >> the effort? >> >> I would hope that more commercial sites would look at the IKEA-usa.com >> site suggested to me this morining, and look at the "glitzy" directions to >> put together a bookcase ... add the needed sound, and add a printable >> version, and a basic text version, for every item sold with directions, >and >> leave it there so the customer could find it every time they needed it >> (instead of cluttering up a drawer full of directions and schematics ...) >> but this is much more than asking for mark-up language ... yet it seems to >> be in the same spirit, at least to me ... >> >> Anne >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> At 07:29 PM 10/19/00 +0100, Wayne Myers-Education wrote: >> >> PS: To constantly belittle those who design in >> >> multi-media and graphics is >> >> never going to get this group anywhere close to acceptance by >> >> those very >> >> people you are supposed to be addressing. >> > >> >Argh. Ok. Rant time. Apologies in advance... >> > >> >Here's my take on the problem here, including why those who refuse to >accept >> >certain facts about the web are always going to be belittled, and why I >> >believe there are two kinds of accessibility that require entirely >different >> >approaches, but which can lead to amusing arguments-without-end between >> >people who conflate the two and confuse the issues. >> > >> >The web is plagued by people who misunderstand it, but who nevertheless >> >build large parts of it. >> > >> >The web is a collection of documents - in the loosest form of the term - >> >which are deliberately constructed in a format which is - by design - >> >supposed to be independent of the way in which those documents are >accessed. >> >That is what the web is. >> > >> >People who approach the web in terms of multi-media and graphics - and >> >nothing more - are therefore missing the point of the medium. The medium >> >allows people to construct documents that may or may not contain >multi-media >> >or graphics, but where the inability to view any multi-media or graphics >> >does not stop them from getting the content from the document. >> > >> >The fact that hordes of multi-media and graphics focussed people have >> >misunderstood this and have flooded the web with pages that break the >rules, >> >tell you what screen resolution you require, tell you what kind of >browser >> >you require, assume that all users have a certain level of bandwidth in >> >their connection, assume that all users can see, and so on and so on, is, >> >AFAIK, precisely the reason that the WAI was set up. >> > >> >Sites where the content relies upon multi-media and graphics are not >> >websites. They are something else, and they just happen to use web >> >technologies to be distributed. But since they rely on highly specific >> >software/hardware configurations in order to be viewed, they are not >> >websites - whether they claim to be or not (and they usually do). People >> >might say that their content *is* the multi-media and the graphics. Fine. >> >But it's not a web document, even if it uses the web for distribution. >> >Personally, I prefer the multi-media and graphics you can get from real >> >standalone multi-media/graphics fest stuff (such as games machines) and >have >> >yet to see a 3d environment online that came close to Quake (a popular 3d >> >environment action game where you run around shooting at monsters, >friends, >> >or both). The web is the web, and Quake is Quake, and that ought to be an >> >end of it. >> > >> >The reason that people trying to funnel something Quake-like into web >pages >> >get belittled is that anyone working in a medium which they clearly do >not >> >understand (by their work) is going to cause serious frustration among >those >> >who do. In other media, there is a threshold of publishing control - of a >> >sort - which means that people who do not understand those media do not >get >> >to pollute that media space with it. Someone who thinks that 1000 words >is >> >sufficient for a novel is simply never going to get that 'novel' >published >> >as a novel. Someone who thinks that text containing nothing but libellous >> >attacks and cuss-words is suitable for publication in a broadsheet >newspaper >> >is going to find that no editor will publish them (or indeed commission >them >> >again). >> > >> >On the other hand, someone who thinks its ok to make a large executable >file >> >requiring a specific plugin containing rotating teapots and so on and who >> >then sells that file to someone in the guise of a 'website', *is* going >to >> >be able to 'publish' it. More commonly, too many seem to think it's ok to >> >make and sell a 'normal' website using some automatic site creation tool >> >which fails to ensure that the resulting site will work in any but the >most >> >recent generation of browser software, and then focus on the 'look and >feel' >> >of the site in those browsers, without bothering to find out what it will >> >look like in other browsers, on PDAs, through voice portals, screen >readers >> >or whatever other new systems for accessing the web will have been >invented >> >by the time I finish ranting. >> > >> >Since people paying for websites - almost by definition - hardly ever >have >> >much understanding of quite what they are paying for, rotating teapots >and >> >the like can easily impress the people with the purse strings; as can >> >'normal' sites presented as flat images. This process can take business >away >> >from people who actually do know what they are doing, and that is more >than >> >enough grounds for any belittlement that may be going on here. Such will >> >continue, as will pages like this: >> > >> >http://www.ntk.net/grey.html >> > >> >Meanwhile, the WAI works to make the web back into a document collection >> >where you can access any document in any way and get content back, >without >> >exception, from wherever, and despite whatever physical barriers have to >be >> >overcome. This is why the WAI lists largely revolve around discussion of >> >specific ways of marking up documents of different sorts in such a way as >to >> >guarantee that documents are 'viewable' independently of what equipment >is >> >used to do so. We call this 'accessibility', and the goal is to work >towards >> >a web where all documents are fully accessible in this sense. >> > >> >Anne's posts and those of some others, over the last while, unless I have >> >seriously misunderstood them, have tended to focus on ways of taking the >web >> >to a place where you can guarantee that all documents are >'understandable' >> >independently of what (cognitive) equipment is used to do so. That is a >> >highly laudable goal (to a degree), and, confusingly, is also called >> >'accessibility'. >> > >> >However, the two kinds of accessibility are not the same. They operate in >> >different domains - one operates in the domain of things a users gets, >and >> >one operates in the domain of things a user understands. In consequence, >the >> >ways in which those goals can be reached are not the same. Conflating the >> >two helps no-one. >> > >> >There is also a deeper difference. There is no reason why the goal of the >> >first kind of accessibility should be impossible. I can conceive - in the >> >abstract - of a system of markup where there was simply no way to produce >a >> >valid document that was inaccessible - and I am sure that this is the >> >precise direction that the WAI is leading Son-Of-HTML, call it what you >> >will. (I only wish I could be more specific on the details of this >> >system...) >> > >> >However, while it should not and will not stop people working towards it, >> >there seems to be a clear reason why the goal of universal cognitive >> >accessiblility is impossible - at least in terms of the web. While one >might >> >be able to produce a document system where, similarly, no-one could >produce >> >a document that someone, somewhere, couldn't understand, this would of >> >necessity impose semantic restrictions on the scope of ideas and the >depth >> >of discussion that such documents could contain. Web pages impose no such >> >semantic restrictions. >> > >> >If you worked out a way of restricting the semantic content of web pages >in >> >order to produce a subset of webpages that everyone could understand, >> >without exception, there would immediately be another set of webpages - >all >> >the ones that were rejected by your semantic-content restriction schema - >> >which, by definition, would be inaccessible to people that couldn't >> >understand them. This is why I say that the goal of making all webpages >> >cognitively accessible is only highly laudable to a degree, since the >only >> >way to actually enforce it would be to actually censor anything that was >too >> >difficult to convert to a universally understandable language of icons >and >> >non-verbal cues. >> > >> >You might see that as a counsel of despair written by someone who knows >> >nothing about cognitive ability issues. You might suggest that there are >no >> >documents anywhere that cannot be rewritten so as to be universally >> >understandable, but I think I can come up with a counter example, and >would >> >suggest that as soon as there is any document anywhere which someone >> >somewhere can't understand - because of the content - then your system >for a >> >web where everyone understands everything has to start banning such >> >documents on the basis of semantic content and content alone. Take >Unlambda: >> > >> >http://www.eleves.ens.fr:8080/home/madore/programs/unlambda/#what_looks >> > >> >Unlambda is one of a number of programming languages constructed >> >deliberately to be obfuscated. Unlambda code is deliberately designed to >be >> >almost impossible to read and understand - even by those people who >invented >> >Unlambda. >> > >> >How would you propose to allow such content in the putative 'web where >> >everyone can understand everything'? If you change it - replace it with a >> >system of icons, say - it is no longer Unlambda, and you have lost the >> >original document in an effectively censorial way. If you just ban it >(for >> >being too hard to process into an iconic format), you are also banning >some >> >things on the basis of semantic content. Either we are back to what is >> >effectively a subsetting process, where some documents are always going >to >> >be too hard for some people to understand. >> > >> >Nevertheless, as ever, the real world meets us all somewhere in the >middle, >> >and we do need to find ways to make more or less most documents both more >or >> >less viewable and more or less understandable by more or less everyone. >> > >> >Since they are so different, however, the accessibility of view (what the >> >user gets) and the accessibility of cognition (what the user understands) >> >must be kept seperate from one another. Otherwise we can't achieve either >> >goal. In practice, it is likely that both kinds of accessibility are only >> >going to be partially achievable in the short term. Until there is a form >of >> >HTML where accessibility of view is guaranteed, accessibility of >cognition >> >is likely to take second place, since the former does not step into the >> >dodgy political waters of allowing or disallowing documents on the basis >of >> >semantic content that the latter does; moreover, the former is at least >> >theoretically possible to universally achieve and the latter is not. >> > >> >I'll shut up now. Sorry to have ranted on... >> > >> >Cheers etc., >> > >> >Wayne >> > >> >Wayne Myers >> >Software Engineer, BBC Digital Media, >> >Coder/Producer, Betsie Project >> >http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/betsie/ >> >020-8752-6116 >> > >> >This e-mail, and any attachment, is confidential. If you have received it >> in error, please delete it from your system, do not use or disclose the >> information in any way, and notify me immediately. The contents of this >> message may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC, >> unless specifically stated. >> > >> > >> 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 >> > > 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 Friday, 20 October 2000 07:04:03 UTC