- From: Jonathan Chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 08:07:53 +0000
- To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
- Cc: "Webmaster@EDD" <web@edd.ca.gov>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
I'm with Chaals on this one, I tried the demo, and came to very similar conclusions, last night I wrote them down, but didn't post, as they seemed so negative, and I've recently been ticked off for being too opinionated. note: sleeping cognitive disability contributors make your views known! Jonathan Wednesday, February 19, 2003, at 04:38 AM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote: > > Yep, I have heard of it. A university in Australia did it five or six > years ago. It wasn't an overall success then for two types of reason. > > One problem was that it gets in the way of people using voice output > already, so they don't like it. > > The other problem is that they actually put some audio there instead > of text, which doesn't help anyone who can't hear web content > (including but not restricted to people who are Deaf), and in trying > to rectify that things fell out of date. Providing conflicting > information is a problem for everyone, but particularly for people who > had relied on the wrong version... > > I have heard of it done since then, with the same problems. It's > actually a fairly common approach, and in my opinion it is the wrong > solution for the wrong problem. It creates problems for the people you > are trying to help, and I believe it is not a good solution for the > people that it can help (people with cognitive disabilities > > cheers > > Chaals > > On Wednesday, Feb 19, 2003, at 03:39 Australia/Melbourne, > Webmaster@EDD wrote: > >> I've never heard of anyone anywhere ever using recorded audio >> versions of >> written content in an effort to improve accessibility for the visually >> impaired community. >> >> Was wondering if anyone else has. >> > -- > Charles McCathieNevile charles@sidar.org > Fundación SIDAR http://www.sidar.org >
Received on Wednesday, 19 February 2003 03:06:04 UTC