W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > June 1999

Re: Guideline 1 in The evaluation techniques document

From: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 11:25:53 -0400
Message-ID: <009e01bebcc3$841cd800$b040968e@wilddog.ic.utoronto.ca>
To: <dd@w3.org>
Cc: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
Daniel,

>Instead of
>>  Valid ALT text:
>I would call that:
>  Evaluation of ALT text
>
Sure, sounds clearer to me.

>>  Not allowed - NULL ALT value (ALT="")
>Was that the consensus when it was discussed on this list ?
>Why is it not allowed while " " is ?
>
Please see my previous message. If there's agreement, I'll change this ER
technique to conform to the WAI techniques. (NULL is allowed. Spaces are not
allowed).

>>  Language for missing ALT text: Missing ALT text for image
>>  Language for suspicious ALT text: Suspicious ALT text for image
>This is language for what usage exactly ?
>
When an evaluation and/or repair tool encounters the problem, it will inform
the user using this language. We don't want A-Prompt to say one thing and
Bobby to say another. For example: If Bobby said 'Missing ALT text for
image' while A-Prompt said 'Picture does not have descriptive text' the user
could be confused.

I was hoping the language could clearly describe the accessibility problem
so the user would know what's wrong. I'm not sure that 'ALT text' is a good
way to describe the value of the ALT attribute to the user. What about
'descriptive text' or just 'description'?

>>  Suggestions for possible ALT text:
>>  Other checks:
>
>I would make that another heading, same level as Analysis, called
>  "Repair of ALT text"
>This way, for each (sub)checkpoint, we have an Evaluation section and
>a Repair section, clearly delimited.
>
Sounds sensible. If there's agreement, I'll modify the document.

>I think it's OK to have a complex image which is described in running
>text, rather than at the other end of a longdesc URI.
>
I agree. Perhaps we could change the user prompt to: "Complex images require
a long description. If the document text does not adequately describe the
image, please create a complete description of the image."?

Chris


-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
To: Leonard R. Kasday <kasday@acm.org>
Cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
Date: Monday, June 21, 1999 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: Guideline 1 in The evaluation techniques document


>
>> http://aprompt.snow.utoronto.ca/docs/Implementation.html
>>
>> What do people think of the items under Guideline 1?
>
>Only commenting 1.1 for now.
>
>Instead of
>>  Valid ALT text:
>
>I would call that:
>  Evaluation of ALT text
>
>and make a H5 out of it.
>
>>  Not allowed - NULL ALT value (ALT="")
>
>Was that the consensus when it was discussed on this list ?
>Why is it not allowed while " " is ?
>
>>  Language for missing ALT text: Missing ALT text for image
>>  Language for suspicious ALT text: Suspicious ALT text for image
>
>This is language for what usage exactly ?
>
>>  Suggestions for possible ALT text:
>>  Other checks:
>
>I would make that another heading, same level as Analysis, called
>  "Repair of ALT text"
>
>This way, for each (sub)checkpoint, we have an Evaluation section and
>a Repair section, clearly delimited.
>
>
>> Technique 1.1.B [priority 1] Check images for LONGDESC
>>
>>    IMG element should have a valid LONGDESC attribute if the image is
complex.
>>    If IMG element has no LONGDESC attribute and could be a complex
>>       image, ask user if the image is complex and requires a long
>>       description.
>
>I think it's OK to have a complex image which is described in running
>text, rather than at the other end of a longdesc URI.
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 1999 12:29:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:33 GMT