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

RE: 2.5.5

From: Slatin, John M <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:14:51 -0600
Message-ID: <6EED8F7006A883459D4818686BCE3B3B0570778F@MAIL01.austin.utexas.edu>
To: "David MacDonald" <befree@magma.ca>, "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>

Thanks, David.  I have a question and a couple of observations.

First, the question: the provision for what we useed to call
"decorative" non-text content seems to be missing. Was that deliberate?
If so, I disagree! And ask that it be reinstated. Otherwise we'll get
people dutifully providing "spacer image" as alt text for every 1x1
.gif...

And now for the concern. This is about the Turing test exception (so not
directly related to David's post). It reads as follows:

<blockquote>
...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.
</blockquote>

"multiple forms" might be misunderstood as requiring the use of forms. I
think the intent, however, is to require different *versions* of the
test, with each aimed at different needs? So I would recommend something
like "multiple versions of the test" for clarity's sake.

This would also match up better with "multiple different disabilities,"
I think.

John

"Good design is accessible design."

Dr. John M. Slatin, Director 
Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin 
FAC 248C 
1 University Station G9600 
Austin, TX 78712 
ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524 
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu 
Web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility 



-----Original Message-----
From: public-wcag-teamc-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-wcag-teamc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David MacDonald
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 4:21 PM
To: 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; 'Andi Snow-Weaver'
Cc: 'Becky Gibson'; 'Michael Cooper'; 'Cynthia Shelly'; 'Sofia Celic';
'Christophe Strobbe'; public-wcag-teamc@w3.org
Subject: RE: 2.5.5




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 23:15:01 GMT

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