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 21:40:26 -0500
To: "'Slatin, John M'" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, "'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: <000b01c74418$0618c920$650fa8c0@home>
Thanks John

 

I actually had just made an adjustment to someone else's proposal and I
didn't notice the missing decorative clause. I think it should go in under
the exceptions section. The rewording below has your amendments:

 

 

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 multiple versions are provided to

accommodate multiple different disabilities.

 

b) otherwise text alternatives at least identify the purpose of the

non-text content.

 

Exceptions:

 

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.

 

If non-text content is pure decoration, or used only for visual formatting,
or if it is not presented to users, then it is implemented such that it can
be ignored by assistive technology.

 

 

 

 

access empowers people...

        ...barriers disable them...

 

www.eramp.com

-----Original Message-----
From: public-wcag-teamc-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-wcag-teamc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Slatin, John M
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 6:15 PM
To: David MacDonald; 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

 

 

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.

 

Exceptions:

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

 

 

 

 

-- 

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.14/657 - Release Date: 1/29/2007
9:04 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 Tuesday, 30 January 2007 02:44:13 GMT

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