- From: Harry Woodrow <harrry@email.com>
- Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 01:18:39 +0800
- To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>, <kynn-eda@idyllmtn.com>
- Cc: "RUST Randal" <RRust@COVANSYS.com>, "'Access Systems'" <accessys@smart.net>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
The User Agent guidelines refer to the software that can access the web. They do not force a text browser to also play audio but there is no way that I can see that they say that if you provide information of any kind (even if that information is only a slogan and an image of a selection of staff members) that you can decide not to deliberately hide this from a class of user especially when it is not a case of "when all else fails".Whether a user uses that incomplete user agent should be his/her choice. Harry Woodrow -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Charles McCathieNevile Sent: Saturday, 19 January 2002 12:42 AM To: kynn-eda@idyllmtn.com Cc: Harry Woodrow; RUST Randal; 'Access Systems'; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org Subject: Re: WA - background-image in CSS I think Kynn is almost right. There is an explicit mandate in teh User Agent Guidelines that the user can have access to all expressions of the content. But there is no mandate that each individual version need to be accessible, only that the overall information is accessible (this is explicitly allowed by WCAG, as per checkpoint 11.4 "when all else fails make another version". But I agree that the author should be expected to think about what is the information being conveyed, and ensure that the same information is always available, even if particular artifacts of a given presentation (colours, sound, font, etc) are not presented by default to all users. At the same time, excluding users from something because of a mistaken idea that they can't use it (having a "text-only" version and a version that is inaccessible to lots of people, for example) is clearly a bad idea. There are many people who cannot use a full-colour version with lots of multimedia, but who can nevertheless make use of images on a one-at-a-time basis (this is how I use lynx), for example. Which is why WCAG says "make a an accessible version", and does not say that a text-only version is sufficient. chaals On Fri, 18 Jan 2002 kynn-eda@idyllmtn.com wrote: Harry wrote: > No it need not look exactly the same in every browser...that is how a print > designer designs. It should have the same content available in every > browser. This is correct. However, in the rest of this discussion, Bob and Harry are wrong. Because they are confusing the _content_ with the _expression of the content_. Randal is right. The user -- disabled or otherwise -- should have access to the same _information_. There is no mandate to access to each specific type of expression of that information. Examples: Information = "the information on whether or not the freeway is flowing quickly, and how fast it's flowing" Expression #1 = "a color-coded map" Expression #2 = "a textual table of information" Information = "you're on Kynn's web site still" Expression #1 = "the text at the top which says 'Kynn's web site'" Expression #2 = "the visual similarity between this page and Kynn's main homepage" Information = "the Prime Minister's message to the people" Expression #1 = "an audio file of his speech" Expression #2 = "the transcript of his speech" As long as the _information_ -- the _content_ -- is conveyed in some other way, there's no problem with additional expressions designed for specific audiences, such as an expression of the information designed for visual users. For example, this is why the W3C has published PDF versions of Recommendations; because the same content is available in HTML and other formats _as well_. Claims of discrimination and the idea that the author has no ability to decide what is important are simply wrong and are at worst harmful to the widespread acceptance of accessibility techniques. --Kynn -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +1 617 258 5999 Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 12:19:11 UTC