W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2002

Re: FW: Blind Users and Web Comics

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 13:09:37 -0500
Message-Id: <200201101809.NAA3789983@smtp2.mail.iamworld.net>
To: "Brigan, Kell" <kbrigan@water.ca.gov>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
[pretty far off Kynn's original post, but it still relates, in terms of what a
well-done content bundle would look like that was in its default
presentation a
cartoon strip.]

At 10:35 AM 2002-01-10 , Brigan, Kell wrote:
>Delurking to comment: I think a good way to go, if this idea were to catch on
for comics, or other illustrations, would be for the cartoonist (or artist or
photographer) to be the one to provide the descriptive text. That way, more of
the original artists' styles and tone could be maintained in the

AG:: On the other hand, the person who devotes themself to cartooning
enough to
get published is quite likely too close to the visual incarnation of the ideas
to be able to summarize.  It can happen both ways -- sometimes it takes fresh
eyes to be a good describer.

>Just a media musing, here. My hearing's gone middle-aged-strange these past
few years, and I'm usually running the tube with captioning on. I think there
are artistic opportunities in both closed-captioning and DVS that are not
exploited. I'm sure some folks will always prefer the literal, unintrusive
version that we have now, especially for drama, documentary or educational
content, but wouldn't it be a blast if captioning or DVS were to become
part of
the show for some comedies or experimental works? As far as the web goes, I
also see a potential for occasional use of smart-aleck or "Greek chorus"
commentary alt content (so long as it also served its primary, descriptive

This is a very slippery slope.  As soon as you try to make the captions wry
witty you will offset their literal meaning from the literal meaning of what
they replace.  You will probably flat out lose the semantic pragmatic crowd. 
In fact, a pattern where the alternatives are not equivalent in their coverage
could be seen as better.  It is something like laying a brick wall.  If the
bricks in the next course line up exactly with the bricks in the previous
course, the wall is weak.  If the joins between the bricks in each course are
staggered from course to course, the wall is strong.


But trying to check a multimedia aggregate where the alternatives are not
dedicated is a complex game of permutations on combinations.  The simple "ALT
is for access" story the way Joe Clark tells it is much easier to teach and

As the King of Siam said, Isss a puzzlement. 

Compare with the problem that on account of the use of TITLE as a toolTip, it
gets written as an aside, a commentary, and not a standalone replacement for
the element it decorates, by and large.  Defeating its role in documenting the
structure fit for summarization and navigation.

 behavior matters (why is a TITLE not a title?)


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Kelly Ford [<mailto:kelly@kellford.com%5D>mailto:kelly@kellford.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2002 8:04 PM
>To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org; Kynn Bartlett
>Subject: Re: Blind Users and Web Comics
>I think it would be a grand idea.  The comics and political cartoons have
>always been somethinfg I'd like to read independently.  Some might be
>inherently graphical but just as audio description is starting to enhance
>the movie going experience, I think making more of this sort of material
>accessible would be worth doing.
Received on Thursday, 10 January 2002 13:13:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:06 UTC