Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 05:49:38 -0600 From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> Cc: <advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: NatWest? no thanks Message-ID: <15335.52818.493844.899017@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <002801c166b4$eec7c320$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> References: <15334.58300.361356.19614@guru.mired.org> <002801c166b4$eec7c320$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> types: > >From: Mike Meyer [mailto:mwm@mired.org] > >Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> types: > >> >> 3) Even if there was a US Supreme Court ruling that mandated ADA for > >> >> commercial > >> >> websites, how would it apply if the website content was not > >about something > >> >> that a blind person can use. > >> >If a blind person were acting in some capacity for a a sighted person > >> >- i.e., considering buying a gift, or researching options or some such > >> >thing. > >> Hmmm... but how would a blind person research which porno site had the > >> better pictures? Or how would a blind person select a modern art > >> painting for a gift? > >By the description that would be attached to the image(s) in a > >properly designed site. > OK, try this one: "Modern art painting - bloches of color like paint or > bird droppings on canvas" It tells you absolutely nothing about the > painting because the whole point of such paintings is to evoke an emotional > response and that will be different for each person. That's not a "properly designed site" (ain't vague descriptions wonderful?), as indicated by the fact that the description tells you absolutely nothing about the painting. For modern art, whatever is applicable of artist, title, date, style and period would probably be appropriate, and would make for a proper site design. That would allow a blind person to order a print for a friend, knowing that the work is by the friends favorite artist, etc. > In short, there's going to be some, probably few, graphics that have no > coorespondence to text and that a blind person cannot use. Applying access > rules to them is very weird, to say the least. Actually, there are a *lot* of graphics on the web that a blind person has no use for. Then again, neither does anyone else - they're just ducks. The correct alternative text for them is an empty string, so they don't clutter up the textual presentation of the page. That's the *easy* part of making a site accessible - make sure that every graphic that has no real function is replaced by a blank string as it's alternative. Figuring out what to replace the ones that have a function with is the hard part :-). <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Q: How do you make the gods laugh? A: Tell them your plans. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15335.52818.493844.899017>