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

Re: Fixed-presentation formats

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 17:44:24 -0500 (EST)
To: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
cc: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0010301734010.9019-100000@tux.w3.org>
A highly impersonal view <grin/> that is all my fault and nobody else's

I think Jason has captured this pretty nicely as a first take. I would edit
the proposal a bit, as follows:

x.y Use data formats that support the application of these guidelines.

Different markup languages, multimedia formats, interface standards, etc.,
have different levels of support for accessibility. It is important to use
technologies that allow the greatest possible application of accessibility
requirements, and that are supported by available software.

Languages that allow the author to meet the checkpoints for marking up
content (for example have support for text alternatives to non-text elements,
differentiate between structural markup and presentation hints, etc) should
be preferred to "fixed form" languages.

W3C Recommendations are reviewed to ensure that they provide support for
accessibility, and software that allows for authoring of accessible content
as well as presentation of content in an accessible way is often widely
available by the time a W3C specification becomes a recommendation.

And maybe some of the more specific poiint by point stuff Jason has, and some
of the rationale he had at the beginning of his message.


Charles McCN

Jason wrote...
  <dt>Give preference to data formats and software protocols which support
  the application of these guidelines.
  <p>Markup languages, multimedia formats, software interface standards,
  etc., vary in the extent to which they support the requirements of
  accessibility. In choosing which technologies to use, it is therefore
  important to take into account the extent to which they facilitate
  application of these guidelines. Content developers should thus favour,
  where practicable, solutions which
  <li>permit text equivalents to be associated with auditory and graphical
  content, and multimedia presentations, if applicable, to be synchronized
  with text equivalents (guideline 1);
  <li>allow the logical structure of the content to be defined,
  independently of presentation (guideline 2);
  <li>enable the content creator to specify a consistent presentational
  style (guidelines 3 and 4);
  <li>support device-independent input events (guideline 5);
  <li>are documented in published specifications and can be implemented by
  user agent and assistive technology developers;
  <li>are supported by user agents and assistive technologies
  <p>Note: to satisfy these requirements, a combination of different
  technologies will ordinarily be required.
  This isn't exactly polished,, draft-quality material and I am offering it
  not for inclusion in the next draft, but as a possible line of thinking
  that might be discussed and developed further if members of the working
  group consider this appropriate.
  Opinions herein are my own, personal views.

Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
September - November 2000: 
W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Monday, 30 October 2000 17:44:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:34 UTC