Hassan Schroeder wrote:
Nick Gleitzman wrote:
Language is what we have as our primary tool of communication. There
are others, of course - Rothko's paintings speak volumes (even if the
man himself lets them speak, choosing enigmatic reservation about
their meaning) - but to presume that because someone is blind, they
can't understand the content of a visual image via a word-based
description is incredibly (ahem) short-sighted. They're blind, not
brain-dead. I'd suggest the shortcoming is not in their ability to
understand an 'alt' description, but in your ability, Bob, to write one.
Perhaps then you (or anyone adhering to this view) can supply, as
an example, a useful description of the cited Rothko? Or maybe one
of Jackson Pollock's works? ('No. 5, 1948' might be good)
And since art is often intended to prompt an emotional reaction on
the part of the audience, write that description so the audience
has an opportunity to connect emotionally with the described work
without putting your own bias into it...
Ready, set, go! :-)
At Last! Thank you! :- )
I refuse to carry this conversation any further, as it has degenerated
into a nit-picking excercise. At least, one person has the
sense/experience to know what I'm talking about.
I notice that no-one has taken up the challenge of providing an
emotional alt tag . . . :-)
--
Bob
www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
