W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 2006

RE: ATAG 2.0 In-Group Checkpoint Review B.2.4 (JR and TB)

From: Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 09:47:32 +0200
To: "'Jan Richards'" <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>, "'List \(WAI-AUWG\)'" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <00f801c6644e$aff95ea0$0200a8c0@rsnbiwa>

Hi,
Remember also that an alternative - if the non-text object is decorative -
could be null.



-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Jan Richards
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 9:05 PM
To: List (WAI-AUWG)
Subject: ATAG 2.0 In-Group Checkpoint Review B.2.4 (JR and TB)



Hi,

Here is the update B.2.4 proposal from Jan and Tim. SC1 has received the 
most work:


B.2.4 Assist authors to ensure that equivalent alternatives
for non-text objects are accurate and fit the context. [Priority 1]

Rationale:
Improperly generated equivalent alternatives can create accessibility 
problems and interfere with accessibility checking.

Success Criteria:

1. If the authoring tool offers text alternatives for non-text objects, 
then the source of the alternatives for each object must be one or more 
of the following:
- alternatives previously entered by *authors* for the non-text object (e.g.
by the same author, or another author on a collaborative system)
- alternatives stored with the non-text object in image databases Text
alternatives from other sources, such as generated from the 
non-text object file name, are not acceptable.

2. The tool must allow the author to accept, modify, or reject 
equivalent alternatives.
Received on Thursday, 20 April 2006 07:47:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:53:06 GMT