W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 1999

Re: COMMENTS: March 16 Draft

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 15:08:29 -0500
Message-ID: <36F6A33D.70C918C6@w3.org>
To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
CC: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Jon Gunderson wrote:

> 1. It is unclear to me why checkpoints related to adding text information
> to images was spread across two guidelines (Guideline 1 and Guideline 2). I
> think it would be much more straight forward to have one guideline related
> to images and discuss markup for ALT, TITLE, LONGDESC and techniques for
> images specified in the OBJECT tag.

There are several axes to consider here, including:

1) The format of the "primary" information: audio or visual
2) The format of the alternative information: text, audio, or video.
3) The purpose of the alternative information: text equivalent
(function)
   or description (appearance)

So far, the WG has chosen to break up guidelines 1, 2, and 3
differently:

1)  Guideline 1 concerns visual input format,
    text alternative format, and text equivalent purpose. 

2) Guideline 2 concerns visual input format,
    text AND audio alternative format, and descriptive function.

3) Guideline 3 concerns audio input format,
    text, audio, and visual alternatives, and text equivalent
    purpose. Note that checkpoint 3.3 doesn't fit nicely
    into this is it involves "visual notification" as well
    as text transcripts.

Eric Hansen, I believe, has also commented that these three guidelines
could be restructured for more clarity. I will raise
this with the WG.
 
> I would also like to see a more complex graph or chart description in the
> techniques section. Like an example from an on-line newspaper or the dow
> jones industrial average (or an international stock composite index). I
> think the long description should provide both the data and the authors
> intended conclusion or summary of the graph. I would be willing to help
> with this if the editors request it.

Yes! Your contribution would be very welcome!
 
> 2. Curious to know why "title" is not discussed related to images in
> Checkpoint 1.1, since it is commomly used by authors with images. While it
> is referenced for other elements in the guidelines it is not mentioned in
> the guidelines ot technique document for images.

We have removed the section on "brief descriptions" from the guidelines
document (see the minutes [1] of the 11 March conf call
where this was decided). The "title" attribute should be used in
accordance with
the HTML 4.0 specification, which says it provides advisory information.
(This statement has been added to the Techniques Document). For now,
the WG has not elected to say more about using "title" for images
in the guidelines. However, I will raise this question with the WG.

[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/meetings/19990311.html#title
 
> 3. I think guideline 2 could be more specific or be broken up into several
> more direct guidelines like guidelines 3.
> 
> My suggestion would be to:
> A. Put long description of image information into guideline 1.
> B. Break guideline 2 into two separate guidelines:
> Provide descriptions of video and animations
> Provide descriptions of applets and scripts

See comments above about reorganization of 1, 2, and 3. How
do video/animations differ from applets/scripts in a way that
suggests a separate guideline?
 
> 4. Checkpoint 5.7
> I think this checkpoint needs to be priority 1. If you use absolute units
> in style sheet as soon as you increase font size you get alphabet soup. Or
> if you leave it priority 2 could you add a reference in the techniques
> document to have them check their page with style sheets turned off, to
> make sure the page reads logically.

This is apparently a closed issue [2] for the WG (see
issue "Absolute Positioning". One reason that it may not be
a priority 1 issue for style sheets is that users may
override absolute units in user style sheets.

I've added a statement to the techniques document where you've
indicated to ensure that developers test their documents
with style sheets turned off.

[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wai-gl-issues.html#absolute-positioning
 
> 5. Checkpoint 7.4
> How will the summary attribute be used to indicate layout?
> Is the assumation that if you don't use TH element then the table is for
> layout?
> If this is so maybe it should be explictly stated somewhere.

Checkpoint 7.4 states: If a table is used for layout, do not 
use any structural markup for the purpose of visual formatting.

However, I don't think you can assume that if TH is not used,
then the table is always for layout. 

I will ask the WG to consider how the "summary" attribute is
to be used.
 
> 6. Checkpoint 15.8 The term "distinguishing" information is not clear to me.

We can elaborate in the techniques document.

> 7. Checkpoint 15.10 I would like to see grouping information as priority .
> Since it is this type of information that helps people with disabilities
> and assistive technologies be smarter and therefore more competitive in
> access WWW pages.

I will raise this issue with the WG.
 
> Maybe there could be additional types of grouping examples and some
> standards. Some examples:
> 1. elements used for advertisement, like on search engine or informational
> sites
> 2. elements related to the same product in electronic catolog sites
> 3. elements related to the same article in an electronic magazine or
> newspaper, especailly if the articles cross columns or have related images
> 
> It would probably be difficult to get a standard markup for all the
> possibiliites. But if user agents had a function that allowed people to
> read items within the same grouping or ignore items with in the same
> grouping (like advertisements) it may be a way to improve document
> navigation and orientation.


 - Ian

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) 
Tel/Fax: (212) 684-1814 
http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Received on Monday, 22 March 1999 15:09:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:46:59 GMT