- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 15:48:45 -0700
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Because of a "senior moment" I had sent this with a wrong subject line. I
think that checkpoint 1.1 and 1.2 under guideline 1 could be consolidated as:
Provide textual equivalents to auditory and graphical presentations
(synchronized where appropriate) so that every component of a document, web
page or multimedia presentation can be rendered as text in a standard
character set.
The explanatory material beneath the 2 current checkpoints would still be
needed in some form.
************************************
The overall document could be used as a self-reflexive example of what
guideline 2 is about. We are using three (at least) "looks" to emphasize
the structure of our document. This information about the structure should
be explained in our text.
The Guidelines are blue, the checkpoints bold, the explanations "normal".
This is done so that a blindless reader can read faster. In order to give a
similar advantage to an "eyes-free" user (how's that as a euphemism for
"blind guy"?) this structural presentation needs to be available to the
screen reader so that its user can perform a similar skim.
If anyone can come up with an appropriate illustrative icon, that too could
be a symbol for the structure - and so on. We should use what we're doing
as an example of why and how we are doing it. It's not just prettification
- it's (possibly undocumented) structure. So the document itself can be its
own example of a technique.
This is the World Wide Web and we are claiming that it need not be
dishwater dull - so where's the elephants and dancing girls? Icons and
sounds aren't just sensual artifacts, they're structural (via presentation)
elements and critics (correctly?) contend that we're demanding that they
create sites as boring as ours.
************************************
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Friday, 29 September 2000 00:02:59 UTC