W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > June 2007

Comment LC-1022

From: Gian Sampson-Wild <gian@tkh.com.au>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 23:08:09 +1000
To: "'Loretta Guarino Reid'" <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Cc: <public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002e01c7b660$baa6d5c0$b300a8c0@tkhcomputer>

Comment 4:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000901c69538$2e394450$f4c9b23a@tkhcomputer
(Issue ID: LC-1022)

Testability - The decision to comply with the testability requirement has
outlawed some very important success criteria. This requirement has also not
been applied fairly to all success criteria. Some current success criteria
do not comply with the 8 out of 10 rule - for example 1.1.1. This SC
requires that alternatives to non-text content "serve the same purpose and
present the same information". One basic example of this is to require
equivalent ALT attributes for images, but I do not believe that 8 out of 10
people would agree on the same ALT attribute for an image. For instance, in
the Live in Victoria site
(www.liveinvictoria.vic.gov.au) there is an image under the heading
"Business Migrants". When I worked on this site, several people said this
image should have a null ALT attribute as it conveyed no information.
Several other people suggested ALT attributes of "A couple of business
migrants chatting at work" or "Guys chatting at work". Whereas the ALT
attribute that I recommended was "There is a wealth of opportunities for
Business Migrants in Victoria."

Proposed Change:

Remove the requirement for testability and set up a taskforce (I volunteer
to work on or head up this taskforce) to identify criteria that should be
included in WCAG2. Alternatively, develop a set of supplementary guidelines
that are non-testable to be used in conjunction with WCAG2.

Response from Working Group:

The success criteria need to be testable or else people cannot tell when
they have conformed to the success criteria and thus WCAG 2.0.

With regard to SC 1.1.1 the success criterion does not require that ALT text
provided by different people be the same. WCAG 2.0 categorizes different
classes of alt text and provides test procedures to help humans evaluate
whether alt text satisfies the success criterion.

Advisory techniques are used to provide supplemental materials that are
non-testable that can be used in conjunction with WCAG 2.0.  They provide
additional guidance on what can be done beyond the requirements of WCAG.
Response from GSW:
If this SC does not require that alternative text from different people be
the same, then what does it require? It appears to allow the alternative
text of "image". It may be true that in supplementary documents there are
guidelines that indicate that "image" is not an appropriate solution to this
SC but this is not indicated in the *normative* document.
Received on Sunday, 24 June 2007 13:08:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:14:44 UTC