Re: Proposal for 3.4 Success Criteria

> JS: Actually, I'd suggest a picture. However, if you're roasting wild pig on
> the beach with a bunch of boisterous people partying a sound clip of the
> event may also be pleasing to the listener. Depending upon who is doing the
> talking, of course.

Unfortunately JC's original article was given out of context, so I'm guessing
that this is a new set of draft guidelines.  I don't know what conformance
level is being talked about here.

However, it seems to me that to conform to this level you have to have
the resources of a prime time television production company and that your
audience needs to have TV type bandwidth (and you must have many times that
bandwidth).

Even to do this legally is going to cost huge amounts of time and
considerable money in obtaining copyright clearances, trademark
clearances, (without prejudice to their legal necessesity) permissions
to link to sites, recording engineers fees, etc.  (A large number of
amateur sites are almost certainly in breach of intellectual property
rights in the illustrative material they use, but W3C cannot officially
countenance such breaches.)  As I say, you are talking of TV programme
production costs, not even just magazine article production costs.

Even relatively traditional media is poor at illustrating concepts; they
are much more likely to use an easy to obtain stock photograph to illustrate
easy features, basically as eye candy, than to commission new material 
for the really difficult bits.

As quoted, there also seems to be an indication of putting everything 
immediately on display on the page.  This seems to me to be the opposite
of the fundamental web concept, which is that you link to material.  Once
you link to material, you can use other people's material (but note that
the cover story for one e-business magazine here in the UK, this week, is
that commercial sites are afraid of linking even to home pages, because
of the legal risks involved).

Received on Sunday, 5 August 2001 05:39:27 UTC