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 . . . :-)



List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm

Reply via email to