W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: ATAG2 B.2.4 Assist authors to manage, edit, and reuse equivalent alternatives for non-text objects.

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:17:40 -0400
Message-ID: <49E8D5D4.8090701@utoronto.ca>
To: WAI-AUWG List <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
To help people understand the implications of the proposal 
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009AprJun/0010.html), 
here's an example workflow of a person uploading a bunch of images to a 
photo-sharing site:

1. author logs into the photo sharing site

2. author uses the uploader feature to upload 50 pics of a vacation 
(XYZ0001.png, XYZ0002.png,..., XYZ0050.png) into an album the author 
calls "Paris 2009".

3. a prompt appears asking the author to write descriptive labels for 
each image to facilitate text searching and access by people with 
disabilities. [This meets B.2.1.1 (prompting for accessibility info. 
req.) and also B.2.4.1.]

4. Since no label or description is included in the photo metadata no 
default @alt value is provided. [meeting B.2.4.2]

5. the author logs off without adding individual text alternatives 
(ending their "authoring session")

6. the photo sharing site assigns the @alt strings "Photo 1 of 50 of 
album Paris 2009" [meeting B.2.4.3 because this info isn't equally 
available to user agents]

7. when the author logs back in they still see indicators on the images 
and/or the album that reminds them that the images are still lacking 
descriptive labels. [meeting B.2.2.1 (Check Accessibility req.)]


NOTE: the page will NOT meet WCAG 2.0 because the text alternative does 
not serve the equivalent purpose - BUT REMEMBER there is no absolute 
requirement of ATAG 2.0 that all user-specified content meet WCAG 2.0.

Cheers,
Jan
Received on Friday, 17 April 2009 19:18:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 17 April 2009 19:18:22 GMT