RE: Requesting Initial Feedback on "Alt-Text on Demand" for Academic Articles

I'd question this statement "to deprive sighted users  on behalf of the disabled.".  Removing content from a site does not benefit users with disabilities either -- no one wins.    Inclusive design is not about "us" vs. "them" -- it's about everyone.

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles 'chaals' (McCathie) Nevile <chaals@yandex.ru> 
Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2019 6:35 AM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Requesting Initial Feedback on "Alt-Text on Demand" for Academic Articles

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.


On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 18:06:08 +0200, Peter Shikli <pshikli@bizware.com>
wrote:

> We remediated what we could with the budget available, but what to do 
> with the rest. One option was to comply to the law by simply >removing 
> them. The optics of this didn't appeal to us; to deprive sighted users 
> on behalf of the disabled.

This is the heart of the issue.

Destroying something of value because it isn't as good as it should be is generally a bad idea. The proposed solution is sub-optimal, but letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is also a bad idea. Thinking through it carefully, and making the best of what you can actually achieve, is generally a good thing.

Enabling people to contribute a potential text - which should be reviewed before being added - is also a good thing in this scenario.

cheers

Chaals

--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Received on Monday, 23 September 2019 15:54:04 UTC