Important: ATAG and alternatives to text

Looking at our guidelines through a learning disability "lens" all 
the guidelines are broad enough to accommodate things like 
alternatives to text except for  3.4 and 3.5 in which we assume that 
there would only be equivalents to non-text objects.

Should we drop the reference to "non-text" objects and make it more 
general so that we can accommodate the development of technologies 
that support the creation of alternatives to text for people with 
dyslexia or other text processing difficulties?

Jutta