I get your point Jonathan. Well, I did earlier but didn't reflect on it
properly, sorry :)
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Chetwynd [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 08 February 2007 20:35
To: Paul Walsh, Segala
Cc: DCMI Accessibility Community
Subject: Re: Not accessible or not adaptable.
paul,
I think not, some things are relatively easy, maybe 'red ferrari
testarossa'.
but imagine if you were asked to illustrate Shakespear's Hamlet you
might not feel your skills sufficient.
similarly you might not feel able to rewrite Hamlet in plain English
for children.
it's a similar problem to be faced when fine artists refuse to
discuss or describe there work.
they wish it to stand on it's merits. otherwise they wouldn't be
artists but writers.
one could annotate a slideshow with dull descriptions that capture
none of the magic of the enterprise, but this is generally referred
to as 'tokenism' and doesn't receive a good press for obvious reasons.
regards
Jonathan Chetwynd
On 8 Feb 2007, at 17:23, Paul Walsh, Segala wrote:
Jonathan, it was the tone behind the message " the author refused to
label
the images with text" - isn't something better than nothing? At least if
it's best endeavours to get it right.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Chetwynd [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 08 February 2007 16:56
To: DCMI Accessibility Community
Cc: Paul Walsh, Segala
Subject: Re: Not accessible or not adaptable.
Paul,
if you think you can annotate these images in a suitable way, I'm
pretty sure the author will accept them.
It will make an excellent resource. I happen to know it's beyond my
abilities
if you choose to use annotea please let me know.
regards
Jonathan Chetwynd
On 8 Feb 2007, at 14:07, Paul Walsh, Segala wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: DCMI Accessibility Community [mailto:DC-
[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Jonathan Chetwynd
Sent: 08 February 2007 12:46
not sure about "deliberately trying to make it bad"
however can I remind everyone of the excellent slide show here:
http://www.magpiedance.org.uk/magpol-library/s0/1.html
the author refused to label the images with text. iirc his argument
being that the photographers images capture and demonstrate an
emotional experience, and that whilst text can perform the same
expression, he's not the person to annotate them.
[PW] I'm sorry, but I think that's downright pathetic and arrogant. It's
like a waiter refusing to give you salt because you might insult the
chef.
I agree with his sentiment.
It seems that for some time into the future providing alt tags for
slideshows will remain a futile exercise in many cases.
regards
Jonathan Chetwynd
On 8 Feb 2007, at 07:05, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:04:43 +0530, Liddy Nevile
<[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> perhaps bear in mind, Charles, that we are not proposing a
> statement ofthe type "x is accessible" or otherwise...but rather,
> "X has variablefont size" or "X is not controllable by keystrokes
> alone"
Sure. But even in that context, how do I say "X has fixed font-size
and I will
do everything in my power to make sure X is an example of something
whose font-size
cannot be varied, because I am deliberately trying to make it bad",
in a way
that you can tell is different from "I don't know about the font-size
in X"?
(In EARL you could just say that it fails a particular requirement,
but I am not
sure how that fits in here).
> Liddy
>
> On 08/02/2007, at 5:20 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 01:54:25 +0530, Liddy
>> Nevile<[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Emmanuelle
>>> have you been able to read the metadata terms we are working on -
>>> theyreflect the specs in WCAG but in a metadata way and give
>>> muchmoreflexibility ... there is a fairly comprehensive set and
>>> they areaboutto become an ISO standard at least for education....
>>>
>>> The DC conformsTo etc simply did not give us enough
>>> usefulinformationabout the resource..so we have added a few
>>> qualifiers andone new term
>>
>> But the big question is whether you can state that something is
>> notaccessible (which
>> is different from not stating that it is) - the use case is
>> forexamples that
>> are showing how not to do things.
>>
>> There is an issue if we use monotonic logic (which underpins
>> thesemantic web, a
>> lot of the assumptions behind Dublin Core, and so on).
>> Broadlyspeaking, a
>> statement is expected to be true. If something is going to
>> changestate, that is
>> problematic, but there are ways around it.
>>
>> The reason for EARL's complexity is to provide a reasonable way
>> ofmanaging both
>> trust, and changes in actual status fo the thing under discussion.
>> If,instead
>> of saying "foo is accessible" you say "fred says foo is
>> accessible"then you don't
>> make RDF and other monotonic systems crash if you add a statement
>> "josays foo
>> is not accessible". (RDF doesn't actually ahve a "not" but you can
>> useOWL to
>> explain that passing "isAnInaccessibleExample" cannot happen
>> toanything that
>> meets WCAG-A, for example. You can then
>> define"isAnInaccessibleExample" as test
>> for EARL and make statements about it.
>>
>> As I understand it, you could then use that approach for DC metadata.
>>
>> So, as far as I know, there is no direct way of saying something
>> isinaccessible,
>> but it is easy enough to define a slightly indirect one.
>>
>> If anyone has a better approach I would love to hear it...
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> Chaals
>>
>> --Charles McCathieNevile Fundacion Sidar
>> [log in to unmask] +61 409 134 136 http://www.sidar.org
--
Charles McCathieNevile Fundacion Sidar
[log in to unmask] +61 409 134 136 http://www.sidar.org
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.30/674 - Release Date:
07/02/2007
15:33
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.30/674 - Release Date:
07/02/2007
15:33
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.30/674 - Release Date: 07/02/2007
15:33
|