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

RE: WA - background-image in CSS

From: Scarlett Julian (ED) <Julian.Scarlett@sheffield.gov.uk>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 14:56:42 -0000
Message-ID: <F9BE3B1AB649D311A573009027852E4D01896704@EDUC_MXS>
To: "'RUST Randal'" <RRust@COVANSYS.com>, "'Harry Woodrow'" <harrry@email.com>, "'Access Systems'" <accessys@smart.net>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> as a journalist, I find the point of view that the user has 
> control over
> what I determine is essential is simply ludicrous.

That's not what this is about(IMHO). As soon as you , as a journalist,
create and publish what you deem to be important, you cease to have control.
Even if no-one ever had access to the publication you have still
relinquished control unless you decide to republish. As soon as a user picks
up (or browses to) that publication it is their's to judge and sift and
ignore and criticise and applaud and essentially do what they want with it.
If they think everything in/on it is a pile of cr*p then that is their
choice and right and there's nothing you, as a journo, can do about it. But,
they do have a right tto see it is as it was intentded to be seen by you.
Now if you intend to make a certain image unavailable because of how you put
it into the page then that in my view is saying that certain users can have
x and certain can have y.

Sorry but your statement smacks of egotism and your views *are*


> -----Original Message-----
> From: RUST Randal [mailto:RRust@COVANSYS.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 2:27 PM
> To: 'Harry Woodrow'; RUST Randal; 'Access Systems'; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: RE: WA - background-image in CSS
> no.  if i design a page on my website to be accessible by all 
> browsers and
> all AT, and i decide that a background image is not relative 
> content, so i
> put it in as a CSS background, that is my opinion, and that 
> is my right as
> the author of the page.
> as a journalist, i find the point of view that the user has 
> control over
> what i determine is essential is simply ludicrous.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harry Woodrow [mailto:harrry@email.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 9:20 AM
> To: RUST Randal; 'Access Systems'; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: RE: WA - background-image in CSS
> That should be exactly what he should be saying.
> If you think you have the right to discriminate between what 
> users of your
> page receive based on their disability I suggest you read the 
> definition of
> discrimination and ask any of the disability representative 
> organizations.
> You can think what you want but when you make that public there are
> responsibilities both morally and legally that you do so in a non
> discriminatory manner.
> Harry Woodrow
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of RUST Randal
> Sent: Friday, 18 January 2002 10:10 PM
> To: 'Access Systems'; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: RE: WA - background-image in CSS
> Think about what you are saying here.  You are saying that 
> the USER should
> be able to determine what is important on the PAGE THAT I 
> If this is your view of the web, then what is the point of anyone even
> posting a web page?
> The author of the page is the one who determines what is 
> essential.  This is
> the basis of such things as "blogging" and personal journals.
> What if you wrote a page, and eliminated a paragraph before 
> you post it.
> Are you saying that the user that the author should leave it, 
> and let the
> user decide if it should stay or not?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Access Systems [mailto:accessys@smart.net]
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 8:56 AM
> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: WA - background-image in CSS
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2002, RUST Randal wrote:
> my opinion only ! (well maybe not just me but I do not speak 
> for others)
> > blind user gets the same ESSENTIAL CONTENT as the user who 
> can see the
> page.
> users with disabilities or other reasons for using alternative screen
> display
> to determine
> what is "essential" content to me
> THIS IS ONE of the major complaints of almost all people with 
> disabilities
> in all areas of access.  NO ONE!, period, has the right to 
> determine my
> needs and priorities.
> Bob
> *you and me as used is generic and not intended to mean any 
> one individual
> ** really one of my major peeves!
> *** shouting is intentional and needed
>    ASCII Ribbon Campaign                        accessBob
>     NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail                   
> accessys@smartnospam.net
>     NO MSWord docs in e-mail                    Access 
> Systems, engineers
>     NO attachments in e-mail,  *LINUX powered*   access is a 
> civil right
> *#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#
> *#*#*#*#*#*#*#
> *#
> THIS message and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
> privileged.  They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named
> above. If you are not the intended recipient, Please notify 
> the sender as
> soon as possible. Please DO NOT READ, COPY, USE, or DISCLOSE this
> communication to others and DELETE it from your computer 
> systems.  Thanks
The information in this email is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee.  If you are not the addressee, please tell us by using the reply facility in your email software as soon as possible. Sheffield City Council cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this message as it has been transmitted over a public network.  If you suspect that the message may have been intercepted or amended please tell us as soon as possible.
Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 09:59:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:07 UTC