W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > October to December 2001

Re: Low vision usage

From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@home.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2001 14:56:06 -0500
Message-ID: <008201c167c6$3ead60e0$2cf60141@cp286066a>
To: <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>, "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Cc: <DPawson@rnib.org.uk>

----- and the answer is still yes which I guess I didn't make clear
enough in my haste to describe lacks.  A person with failing vision who
is used to images may need the text to support their continued visual
reduction till they are at a point where they are using something other
than vision.  Or perhaps that vision remains stable but images alone are
not enough because of what they once had and now have lost.
Original Message -----
From: "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
To: "David Poehlman" <poehlman1@home.com>; <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Cc: <DPawson@rnib.org.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: Low vision usage


At 02:24 PM 2001-11-07 , David Poehlman wrote:
>Al, The answer is yes. Some times, the image details are just too
>difficult to see or the image contrast is not good enough or the person
>has vision severe enough that images are not good ways for them to
>attain info but they can still read the text.
>

Thank you, David.

May I ask a follow-up clarifying question?

What you said here could describe a case where the image is completely
useless
and simply giving the user the text is as good as it gets.

But that may not be what you meant.  I meant to ask, are there in
between
people for whom the image is perceptually degraded to the point that the
assist
from the text is highly valuable; but still there is residual utility in
the
image perception so that the text alone is inferior to having access to
the
text with image, together.

Al

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
>To: <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
>Cc: <DPawson@rnib.org.uk>
>Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 2:07 PM
>Subject: RE: Low vision usage
>
>
>At 10:35 AM 2001-11-07 , DPawson@rnib.org.uk wrote:
>>
>>> I would send the suggestions to the User Agent group list
>>> (w3c-wai-ua@w3.org). Tim Lacy is currently the Microsoft contact
>>> participating in the User Agent working group.
>>
>>Thanks Jon.
>>
>>Issue: alt text on images, for low vision users.
>>
>>If I have screen fonts set to large,
>>alt text remains the same size, it doesn't increase
>>proportionately to the screen font.
>>
>>(Its the same on java tooltips btw).
>>Whats it like on opera or amaya or Netscape?)
>>
>
>Question:
>
>Are there some low vision users who should be able to have both the ALT
>and
>image shown at the same time? So the ALT is there to explain what is in
>the
>image of which you see a fragment?
>
>There was the suggestion earlier [failing to find reference at the
>moment]
>that
>LD users should have access to both the text equivalent and the image
>equivalent, displayed together.
>
>Al
>
>>
>>Regards DaveP.
>>
>>
>>-
>>
>>NOTICE: The information contained in this email and any attachments is
>>confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the
>>intended recipient you are hereby notified that you must not use,
>>disclose, distribute, copy, print or rely on this email's content. If
>>you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender
>>immediately and then delete the email and any attachments from your
>>system.
>>
>>RNIB has made strenuous efforts to ensure that emails and any
>>attachments generated by its staff are free from viruses. However, it
>>cannot accept any responsibility for any viruses which are
>>transmitted. We therefore recommend you scan all attachments.
>>
>>Please note that the statements and views expressed in this email
>>and any attachments are those of the author and do not necessarily
>>represent those of RNIB.
>>
>>RNIB Registered Charity Number: 226227
>>
>>Website:
<<http://www.rnib.org.uk/>http://www.rnib.org.uk/><http://www.rnib.org.u
k/>
http://www.rnib.org.uk
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2001 14:56:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:32 UTC