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

Guideline does not mention the need for equivalent alternatives (only SC).

From: WCAG 2.0 Comment Form <nobody@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 01:09:51 +0000 (GMT)
To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Message-Id: <20070629010951.59AD947BA3@mojo.w3.org>


Name: Sandra Vassallo
Email: S.Vassallo@e-bility.com
Affiliation: e-Bility Inclusive IT
Document: W2
Item Number: Guideline 1.1: Provide text alternatives for any non-text ...
Part of Item: 
Comment Type: editorial
Summary of Issue: Guideline does not mention the need for equivalent alternatives (only SC).
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
As stated by the Guideline, the primary benefit in providing text alternatives for any non-text content is that it can be changed into other forms people need such as large print, braille, speech, symbols or simpler language. However, unless the alternative conveys the same information it may be of little use.



Courts and Government policy makers will most likely use the W3C normative guidelines as their benchmark for determinations of accessibility conformance and since the Success Criterion 1.1.1 (Non-text Content) already has as a checkpoint that \"All non-text content has a text alternative that presents equivalent information ...\", it would be beneficial and consistent to include equivalence in the actual Guideline.

Proposed Change:
Edit Guideline 1.1 to read \"Provide equivalent text alternatives for any non-text content so that it can be changed into other forms people need such as large print, braille, speech, symbols or simpler language\"
Received on Friday, 29 June 2007 01:09:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:08 UTC