W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > March 2004

RE: Chris's test cases - first checkpoint

From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2004 15:30:29 +0200
To: "'Lisa Seeman'" <lisa@ubaccess.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <009501c414c8$d6d34040$5302010a@K2>

hi lisa,

we read you! you're on the list and i wouldn't know why you would be
bounced off...

regards,
  shadi


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Lisa Seeman
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 10:36
To: 'Shadi Abou-Zahra'
Cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: Chris's test cases - first checkpoint



I am not getting the er list mailings again - have I been bounced off?

All the best
Lisa Seeman
 
Visit us at the UB Access website
UB Access - Moving internet accessibility
 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shadi Abou-Zahra [mailto:shadi@w3.org] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 9:56 PM
> To: 'Lisa Seeman'
> Cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Chris's test cases - first checkpoint
> 
> 
> hi,
> 
> Lisa Seeman writes:
> > ID 90:
> > Does a script that just changes the shading
> > need a no scripts? 
> > Etc 
> 
> in my opinion the answer to this question is no, the author 
> does not need to provide a no script tag for such a script.
> 
> my rationale is the analogy to images: if the script conveys 
> _relevant_ information then the experience should be 
> represented in text.
> 
> by the way, in the case of mere shading, maybe the extension 
> of the css pseudo classes and voice synthesis properties will 
> provide a better solution to this problem in the near future 
> but a NOSCRIPT tag would still not be necessary.
> 
> 
> > Objects- is there such a thing as an object
> > that is just visual - with out semantic 
> > content? If so then will a blank title do? 
> > Let's take an animation/object of an dot 
> > getting bigger and smaller. Does the text 
> > equivalent need to be larger then the words 
> > "dot getting big and small". do we need it 
> > at all? What if a description of the object 
> > follows in the text. Does an object 
> > described above need both a title and 
> > embedded text?
> 
> i'm not sure what the correct way is to provide an 
> alternative text for an object and whether the title 
> attribute is actually the intended feature.
> 
> as to the animated dot, it depends on the context. if the dot 
> is the logo of the company or and advertisement campaign etc 
> then it is relevant information and probably a short text 
> would do the job.
> 
> on the other hand, if the description of an object comes 
> before the object tag itself and the description highlights 
> the visually conveyed information in such a comprehensive way 
> that an additional text would be redundant then i would agree 
> that it should be omitted. but how often does that happen? 
> would a false positive be a better approach for such a test?
> 
>  
> > Applet - Will embedded text do for an applet
> > or do they _need_ an alt as well - And the 
> > same kind of issues as with object
> 
> first of all, i believe the applet tag is deprecated and 
> should be replaced rather than be fixed.
> 
> secondly, i'm inclined to believe that the embedded text was 
> intended to be sort of a NOSCRIPT feature. again, depending 
> on the context sometimes the alt attribute will be enough and 
> often it won't. i can't recall seeing any applets where an 
> alt attribute was not required.
> 
> regards,
>   shadi
> 
Received on Sunday, 28 March 2004 08:30:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:42 GMT