W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag-teamc@w3.org > January 2007

RE: 2.5.5

From: David MacDonald <befree@magma.ca>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:21:12 -0500
To: "'Gregg Vanderheiden'" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "'Andi Snow-Weaver'" <andisnow@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "'Becky Gibson'" <Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com>, "'Michael Cooper'" <cooper@w3.org>, "'Cynthia Shelly'" <cyns@exchange.microsoft.com>, "'Sofia Celic'" <Sofia.Celic@visionaustralia.org>, "'Christophe Strobbe'" <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>, <public-wcag-teamc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000701c743f3$cb1678f0$650fa8c0@home>


How about this friendly amendment:



For all non-text content at least one of the following is true:

For non-text content that presents information:

-- if the information can be presented in text, then text alternatives
present the same information as the non-text content.

-- if the information cannot be presented in text or if the non-text content
accepts user input, then

a) If the non-text content is a test or exercise that must be presented in
non-text format, then text alternatives at least identify the non-text
content with a descriptive text label. In addition, if the purpose of the
test is to confirm that content is being operated by a person rather than a
computer, then different forms are provided to accommodate multiple
different disabilities.

b) otherwise text alternatives at least identify the purpose of the non-text
content.

Exception:
For content is multimedia, live audio-only or live video-only content,
or content that is primarily intended to create a specific sensory
experience, then text alternatives at least identify the non-text content
with a descriptive text label.

-----------------------------------------
\
Gregg,

This almost works. But I don't think that multimedia, live audio only, or
live vido only are non-text content that cannot be presented in text.

Andi


You might move the last (3rd) bullet up to the third place and put the
exceptions at the bottom.   Otherwise the third button is an orphan.

This is the only one with exceptions....

Hmmmmm

As I look at this more I wonder about the construction.  The exceptions are
not really exceptions but other conditions.... with requirements.



Maybe something like:

For all non-text content at least one of the following is true:

For non-text content that presents information:

-- if the information can be presented in text, then text alternatives
present the same information as the non-text content.

-- if the information cannot be presented in text or if the non-text content
accepts user input, then

a) if the content is multimedia, live audio-only or live video-only content,
or content that is primarily intended to create a specific sensory
experience, then text alternatives at least identify the non-text content
with a descriptive text label.

b) If the non-text content is a test or exercise that must be presented in
non-text format, then text alternatives at least identify the non-text
content with a descriptive text label. In addition, if the purpose of the
test is to confirm that content is being operated by a person rather than a
computer, then different forms are provided to accommodate multiple
different disabilities.

c) otherwise text alternatives at least identify the purpose of the non-text
content.

-- if the non-text content that does not present information (decorative,
formatting, invisible), text alternatives communicate to assistive
technology that the content should not be rendered.




This is hierarchical in nature which I don't like.  But it does reflect the
nature of this.


Anyone see another way?


Gregg
 -- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-wcag-teamc-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-wcag-teamc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David MacDonald
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 1:31 PM
> To: 'Andi Snow-Weaver'
> Cc: 'Becky Gibson'; 'Michael Cooper'; 'Cynthia Shelly';
> 'Sofia Celic'; 'Christophe Strobbe'; public-wcag-teamc@w3.org
> Subject: 2.5.5
>
>
>
> Hi Folks
>
> Andi and I had a conference call this morning and we came up
> with a proposal for issue. 958, SC 1.1.1
>
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_indivi
> dual.php?id=95
> 8
>
> or http://tinyurl.com/2fwxdz
>
>
>
> I ran it by Gregg and he thinks it works also.
>
> Cheers
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
>


-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.12/653 - Release Date: 1/26/2007
11:11 AM
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.14/657 - Release Date: 1/29/2007
9:04 AM
 
Received on Monday, 29 January 2007 22:22:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:49 GMT