W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag-teama@w3.org > October 2005

RE: FW: combining 3.2 L3 SC1 and L2 SC3

From: Li, Alex <alex.li@sap.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 14:20:56 -0700
Message-ID: <6D259B2A9E733043B2D8567C82C2FEF91A3D037F@uspalx23.pal.sap.corp>
To: "Ben Caldwell" <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>, "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Cc: <public-wcag-teama@w3.org>

Text alternative is how you label non-text content.  So, the original
should already include text alternative.  We are fine with original sc
if we include techniques. -Alex

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Caldwell [mailto:caldwell@trace.wisc.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 2:10 PM
To: Gregg Vanderheiden
Cc: Li, Alex; public-wcag-teama@w3.org
Subject: Re: FW: combining 3.2 L3 SC1 and L2 SC3

Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> OK 
> Here goes
> Combined form is...
> 3.2 L2 SC3.  Components that have the same functionality in multiple
> delivery units within a set of delivery units are labeled consistently
> have consistent text alternatives (if any).
> (Guide to 3.2 L2 SC3)

Looks pretty good. Do we need to include "and have consistent text 
alternatives (if any)."? I'm not sure we need to make any changes to the


We can clarify in the guide doc that the use of consistent text 
alternatives is how you'd meet this for functional non-text content if 
need be (ex. situation a: text-based components; situation b: non-text 


Ben Caldwell | <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>
Trace Research and Development Center <http://trace.wisc.edu>
Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2005 21:25:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:54:12 UTC