W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 2001

Checkpoints for Guideline 3

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 10:56:11 -0400
Message-ID: <3B37510B.C570EC86@utoronto.ca>
To: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
More rewrites. For 3.1 and 3.2, these include special notes that
hopefully do a better job of limiting the scope of the relative priority

3.1 Prompt the author to provide equivalent alternative information for
non-text content. [Limited Relative Priority (see Note)]

Note: Limited Relative Priority: WCAG 1.0 Checkpoints referring to
alternative information for non-text objects are [refs here]

Rationale: The inclusion of alternative information (alternative text,
captions, auditory descriptions, collated text transcripts for video,
etc.) for non-text content is critical to accessibility. Therefore, a
special effort is required, from authoring tools, to collect this

Minimum functionality: A method for adding alternative information,
appropriate to the author-tool interaction, must be provided to the
author whenever a non-text object (see Note) has been inserted.

Optional advanced functionality: Provide special authoring facilities
that automate some of the process of generating alternative information
(e.g. voice recognition to produce collated text transcripts).

See also: Techniques for checkpoint 3.1


3.2 Help the author create structured content and separate information
from its presentation. [Limited Relative Priority (see Note)]

Note: Limited Relative Priority: WCAG 1.0 Checkpoints referring to the
separation of content from structure are [refs here] 

Rationale: The separation of information from presentation is important
to accessibility. 

Minimum functionality: For markup languages that support presentation by
styling, use and encourage the use of styling by default. Discourage the
use of deprecated presentation elements and attributes.

See also: Techniques for checkpoint 3.2 


3.3 Do not automatically generate equivalent alternatives or reuse
previously authored alternatives without author confirmation, except
when the function is known with certainty. [Priority 1]

Rationale: Improperly generated alternatives can interfere with
accessibility checking.

Minimum functionality: Usually, when a new object is inserted, the
function is unknown, so the tool should prompt the author to enter an
appropriate equivalent alternative without providing a generated default
entry (e.g. the file name and size). However, alternatives may be
automatically generated or re-used when the tool has either placed the
object for a specific purpose (e.g. navigation bar) or the user has
defined a purpose for the object. Only an alternative that has been
explicitly associated with an object may be offered as a default entry
for the author to approve. 

See also: Checkpoint 1.4 and checkpoint 3.4, Techniques for checkpoint


3.4 Provide functionality for managing, editing, and reusing alternative
equivalents for multimedia objects. [Priority 3]

Rationale: Compliance with checkpoint 3.3 may be simplified by providing
an alternative equivalent management system.

Minimum functionality: Store associations between multimedia objects
(images, sounds, movies) and alternatives (alternative text, long
descriptions, text transcripts) created by the author, allowing the
author to edit the alternatives and reuse them easily.

Optional advanced functionality: Collect alternatives from a variety of
sources (the author, prepackaged, the Web) and provide powerful tools
for managing the associations, including search functions and object
similarity estimates.

See also: Techniques for checkpoint 3.4



Jan Richards
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC)
University of Toronto

Tel: (416) 946-7060  Fax: (416) 971-2896

Received on Monday, 25 June 2001 10:56:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:46 UTC