W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2000

Checkpoint 1.1

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 14:49:19 +1100 (EST)
To: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.4.10.10010281409240.18980-100000@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Pursuant to an action item which I accepted two weeks ago, here is an
attempt to rewrite checkpoint 1.1 (for the sake of clarity, some HTML
markup is used in the following proposal):

<dt>1.1 Ensure that all content can be presented as text. To achieve this,
provide a text equivalent for every auditory, graphical or multimedia
presentation which serves to convey meaningful information in the context
of a document or user interface.
<dd>Note that purely decorative or stylistic sounds and images are
excluded from the above requirement. The purpose of a text equivalent is
to provide a meaningful substitute for the auditory or graphical
presentation in circumstances where the latter is inaccessible to the
user. Thus, a well written text equivalent has the following
characteristics:
<ol>
<li>So far as possible, it communicates the same meaning or information,
in its context, as the auditory, graphical or multimedia presentation.
<li>It does not describe the auditory or graphical presentation, except
where such a description would best express the author's intended meaning.
<li>It is written in clear and concise language.
</ol>

[end of proposal]

The above text strives to address the following concerns:

1. It removes the term "rendered" in favour of (what is, on hopes, the
clearer and more consistently used word "presented") from the statement of
the requirement. (Concern raised by Kynn at the face to face meeting).

2. It removes the expression "every component" from the statement of the
requirement, which discussion at the face to face meeting showed was
ambiguous (it could be interpreted as meaning, for example, that a text
equivalent would need to be provided for every frame of a movie--clearly
an absurd result).

3. It removes the "functional" terminology (conveying "the same function"
as the auditory or graphical presentation) by substituting a clearer
description of what constitutes a well written text equivalent (concern
raised at the face to face meeting and elsewhere--originally by Lisa?)

4. It divides the explanation of what authors should bear in mind when
writing text equivalents, into a list of separate items, instead of
presenting it as a single paragraph (in response to a concern raised by
Lisa in teleconferences and at the face to face meeting).

5. It removes the requirement of a "standard character set", which is best
dealt with under the heading of compatibility with user agents and
assistive technologies (guideline 6), as a technique relevant to formats
that permit, for example, font-specific character encodings (e.g., PDF)
(concern raised by Kynn at the face to face meeting).

There are some concerns regarding checkpoint 1.1 which I may have
overlooked. If so, and if they are still applicable to the text proposed
above, please raise them as part of the discussion which will doubtless
ensue in due course.
Received on Friday, 27 October 2000 23:49:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:07 GMT