If the argument is that we have an obligation to provide novelizations of every comic, I don't agree. That's just not a way of "providing access" to a "space" that was inaccessible. As the authors...
If the argument is that we have an obligation to provide novelizations of every comic, I don't agree. That's just not a way of "providing access" to a "space" that was inaccessible.
As the authors show with their own example of trying to describe a single panel, the non-visual translation is a completely different product and experience. They're not making comics accessible, they're presenting a different piece of art entirely.
The accessibility metaphor is pretty strained here.
"Everyone deserves access" is a goal to which they show there is no easy answer. Comics are a really hard thing to do "accessibility" for, as they point out, and hard problems make for good goals....
"Everyone deserves access" is a goal to which they show there is no easy answer. Comics are a really hard thing to do "accessibility" for, as they point out, and hard problems make for good goals.
I don't think they're suggesting anything, outside of a multimodal approach being something that gets closer to that goal. Audio adaptations, screen readers, tactile rendering, perhaps some future approaches like LLMs paired with computer vision, etc., each give the blind a little more access to an inaccessible medium.
I'm saying we cannot provide access. We can only provide substitutes. If ought implies can, then this is one of the limits of the "everyone deserves access" pablum.
I'm saying we cannot provide access. We can only provide substitutes. If ought implies can, then this is one of the limits of the "everyone deserves access" pablum.
How does this not apply to accessibility for anything else? A device reading a menu for a blind person may not convey a picture of the food, but in most cases that isn't important and that device...
How does this not apply to accessibility for anything else? A device reading a menu for a blind person may not convey a picture of the food, but in most cases that isn't important and that device increases access.
I've been on either end of describing a comic to someone with very little lost. I can also think of plenty of comics that you'd miss really important parts of, like Asterios Polyp, with just an audio translation. Do they get what's in the gutter? Can you emulate background information meant for the observant (e.g., "Gordian Knot" in Watchmen) without spoiling or removing it? That's not obvious to me.
The criterion that a perfect (or extremely high) correspondence between a comic's visual experience and some hypothetical multimodal experience is needed for it to have value is one I don't get. A reductio for that would be that all translations aren't worth reading. Better learn German (*as used in the 18th century) and use original versions if you want to experience Kant, I guess?
I also don't think either of us are positioned to evaluate the verisimilitude of a tactile rendering where height correspond to darkness, or that after being primed with a highly literal description of a scene.
Presumably the menu is a means to ordering food. Providing another way of doing that gets the same end. Likewise providing ramps in addition to stairs. Or making functional webpages aria...
Presumably the menu is a means to ordering food. Providing another way of doing that gets the same end. Likewise providing ramps in addition to stairs. Or making functional webpages aria compliant.
With the comics case, you're providing an entirely different end. You're not making comics accessible. You're making something else. Which, fine if you want to, but doesn't feel like an obligation.
MIT Technology Review doesn't usually have adverts. And after disabling my adblocker and refreshing, I don't see any ads anywhere. I even checked it on Chrome, which I don't even have an adblocker...
MIT Technology Review doesn't usually have adverts. And after disabling my adblocker and refreshing, I don't see any ads anywhere. I even checked it on Chrome, which I don't even have an adblocker installed for, and I don't see any ads there either. So what are you talking about?
Ah, that makes sense. I didn't get any subscription nag pop-ups either though, but maybe they're Geo-specific? Might also be cookie based, and since I regularly visit TR I probably dismissed them...
Ah, that makes sense. I didn't get any subscription nag pop-ups either though, but maybe they're Geo-specific? Might also be cookie based, and since I regularly visit TR I probably dismissed them at some point, and so they haven't come back.
Edit: Yeah, I think they're cookie based. Disabled my adblocker, deleted my TR cookies, and when I refreshed I got a subscription nag pop-up. It was just one pop-up though (and a cookie policy confirmation at the bottom), and pretty easily dismissed. So I wouldn't label the whole website as being "terrible" for that. Especially since, IMO, it's a damn good publication.
If the argument is that we have an obligation to provide novelizations of every comic, I don't agree. That's just not a way of "providing access" to a "space" that was inaccessible.
As the authors show with their own example of trying to describe a single panel, the non-visual translation is a completely different product and experience. They're not making comics accessible, they're presenting a different piece of art entirely.
The accessibility metaphor is pretty strained here.
"Everyone deserves access" is a goal to which they show there is no easy answer. Comics are a really hard thing to do "accessibility" for, as they point out, and hard problems make for good goals.
I don't think they're suggesting anything, outside of a multimodal approach being something that gets closer to that goal. Audio adaptations, screen readers, tactile rendering, perhaps some future approaches like LLMs paired with computer vision, etc., each give the blind a little more access to an inaccessible medium.
I'm saying we cannot provide access. We can only provide substitutes. If ought implies can, then this is one of the limits of the "everyone deserves access" pablum.
How does this not apply to accessibility for anything else? A device reading a menu for a blind person may not convey a picture of the food, but in most cases that isn't important and that device increases access.
I've been on either end of describing a comic to someone with very little lost. I can also think of plenty of comics that you'd miss really important parts of, like Asterios Polyp, with just an audio translation. Do they get what's in the gutter? Can you emulate background information meant for the observant (e.g., "Gordian Knot" in Watchmen) without spoiling or removing it? That's not obvious to me.
The criterion that a perfect (or extremely high) correspondence between a comic's visual experience and some hypothetical multimodal experience is needed for it to have value is one I don't get. A reductio for that would be that all translations aren't worth reading. Better learn German (*as used in the 18th century) and use original versions if you want to experience Kant, I guess?
I also don't think either of us are positioned to evaluate the verisimilitude of a tactile rendering where height correspond to darkness, or that after being primed with a highly literal description of a scene.
Presumably the menu is a means to ordering food. Providing another way of doing that gets the same end. Likewise providing ramps in addition to stairs. Or making functional webpages aria compliant.
With the comics case, you're providing an entirely different end. You're not making comics accessible. You're making something else. Which, fine if you want to, but doesn't feel like an obligation.
The comics are clearly beyond sight because they're overlayed with all those horrible adverts. What a terrible website.
MIT Technology Review doesn't usually have adverts. And after disabling my adblocker and refreshing, I don't see any ads anywhere. I even checked it on Chrome, which I don't even have an adblocker installed for, and I don't see any ads there either. So what are you talking about?
They might be talking about the pop-ups for MIT's own subscriptions?
Ah, that makes sense. I didn't get any subscription nag pop-ups either though, but maybe they're Geo-specific? Might also be cookie based, and since I regularly visit TR I probably dismissed them at some point, and so they haven't come back.
Edit: Yeah, I think they're cookie based. Disabled my adblocker, deleted my TR cookies, and when I refreshed I got a subscription nag pop-up. It was just one pop-up though (and a cookie policy confirmation at the bottom), and pretty easily dismissed. So I wouldn't label the whole website as being "terrible" for that. Especially since, IMO, it's a damn good publication.