W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > August 2014

Re: How short should be a short description? [Different situations under Sufficient Techniques for 1.1.1 - Non-text Content] ( LC-2939)

From: Devarshi Pant <devarshipant@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2014 21:41:32 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJGQbjvR2otc6BHKrvzR975K0pfzRV1bi4MhWQw10XqCK__hhQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
"Would you be willing to help write
such a technique, so that people can find out best practices?"

I would certainly help. Is there a preferred format to write an advisory
technique, and if so, can you point me to it?
Thanks,
Devarshi
On Aug 3, 2014 7:38 PM, <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote:

 Dear Devarshi Pant  ,

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group has reviewed the
comments you sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Techniques
for WCAG 2.0 published on 6 Mar 2014. Thank you for having taken the time
to review the document and to send us comments!

The Working Group's response to your comment is included below.

Please review it carefully and let us know by email at
public-comments-wcag20@w3.org if you agree with it or not before 10 August
2014. In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific
solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. If such a
consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the opportunity to raise a
formal objection which will then be reviewed by the Director during the
transition of this document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation
Track.

Thanks,

For the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group,
Michael Cooper
W3C Staff Contact

 1.
http://www.w3.org/mid/CAJGQbjvNHKW+SDz_QspCVQv+B2e44TRrBbe1VEMLk7qku3T2mw@mail.gmail.com
 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20140306/


=====

Your comment on H37: Using alt attributes on img elements:
> I have a question regarding some situations listed under "Sufficient
> Techniques for 1.1.1 - Non-text Content" --
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/#text-equiv, namely, Situation A:
> If
> a short description can serve (supported by G94 etc.)... and Situation
> B:
> If a short description cannot serve (supported by G95 etc.)...
>
> Question: Can someone decide on the basis of the length of text string
> if a
> short description can 'serve' or 'cannot serve' the same purpose as the
> non-text content? For example, wouldn't it be more helpful to know to
> use
> Situation A when the short description is less than 200 char etc.? A
> case
> in point - H37 is listed under both Situations A and B, which means
> that
> although not suitable, a 1200 char length alt attribute on a chart
> (Situation B) can be implemented to claim conformance. Basically, how
> short
> should be a short description?


Working Group Resolution (LC-2939):
A character count is not an appropriate measure for whether a short
description is short, particularly since some languages are terser than
other languages.

An advisory technique, "Keeping short descriptions short", has been
proposed but has not yet been written. Would you be willing to help write
such a technique, so that people can find out best practices?

----
Received on Monday, 4 August 2014 01:42:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 14 July 2018 08:23:16 UTC