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

RE: Agenda

From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 08:39:01 +0200
To: "WAI \(E-mail\)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000701c043ce$7a9e69e0$eaa7003e@ndcil.com>
Is this a rewrite of the original guideline or of my rewrite from last
month.
It looks as if my additions are now excluded.
Can we try and base proposals on the previous proposal. Instead of
forgetting all about them.

L

Hear it is..( the asterisks are meant to be bullet points.)
Ensure, by providing text equivalents, that every component of a document,
web page, or multimedia presentation, can be rendered as text in a standard
character set.

To achieve this:
*Provide text equivalents for every non-textual element such as auditory
and graphical components

*Capture the intent of the non-textual element in the textual equivalent

*Preserve the functionality of the non-textual element in the textual
equivalent

*Use the best and most apropriate means to maintain the purpose of the
non-textual element in the textual equivalent.
This can be achieved in some cases by a short label or descriptive phrase;
in other cases the essence of the non-textual element is best captured by
a longer explanation, description or exposition.>Structured content or
metadata can also be used.


NOW

Let us try to base the new stuff on the old.


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Jason White
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2000 3:09 AM
To: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
Subject: Agenda


Thursday, 2 November, 2100 UTC (4 PM U.S. Eastern, 6 AM Japan, 8 AM
Eastern Australia); please check your time zones carefully. The meeting
will be held, as usual, on the W3C/MIT Longfellow bridge: +1-617-252-1038

Agenda

1. Recently proposed changes to checkpoint 1.1. My proposal is reproduced
below. Note also the changes suggested by Kynn in a recent message to the
list
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2000OctDec/0354.html):

<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]


2. Recent proposals surrounding checkpoint 2.3, the latest of which is my
attempt to incorporate some of Kynn's ideas, together with my own:

<dt>2.3 Use markup or a data model to specify the logical structure of
content.
<dd><p>Note: this allows a diverse variety of presentations, in different
modalities and on different devices, to be generated automatically through
the application of style rules. It also facilitates logical navigation of
the content by the user, a capability which is particularly important in
voice-based interaction or in circumstances where the content is presented
on a low-resolution display or braille device.

<p>The details of which structural aspects of the content should be
expressed in the markup or data model, are set forth in the Techniques
relevant to each technology [link to 2.0 Techniques]. To provide general
guidance however, the following is a non-exhaustive list of structural and
semantic features of content which are considered important:
<dt>2.3 Use markup or a data model to specify the logical structure of
content.
<dd><p>Note: this allows a diverse variety of presentations, in different
modalities and on different devices, to be generated automatically through
the application of style rules. It also facilitates logical navigation of
the content by the user, a capability which is particularly important in
voice-based interaction or in circumstances where the content is presented
on a low-resolution display or braille device.

<p>The details of which structural aspects of the content should be
expressed in the markup or data model, are set forth in the Techniques
relevant to each technology [link to 2.0 Techniques]. To provide general
guidance however, the following is a non-exhaustive list of structural and
semantic features of content which are considered important:
<dt>2.3 Use markup or a data model to specify the logical structure of
content.
<dd><p>Note: this allows a diverse variety of presentations, in different
modalities and on different devices, to be generated automatically through
the application of style rules. It also facilitates logical navigation of
the content by the user, a capability which is particularly important in
voice-based interaction or in circumstances where the content is presented
on a low-resolution display or braille device.

<p>The details of which structural aspects of the content should be
expressed in the markup or data model, are set forth in the Techniques
relevant to each technology [link to 2.0 Techniques]. To provide general
guidance however, the following is a non-exhaustive list of structural and
semantic features of content which are considered important:
<ul>
<li>The division of the content into hierarchies of sections and
subsections, as appropriate to its type. For example, a book may be
divided into parts, chapters, paragraphs etc., a multimedia presentation
into acts, scenes etc., or an image into the distinct objects which it
depicts.
<li>Groups or sets of related items. Examples include bulleted lists and
groups of user interface controls. Each item should be separately
identified, as should any logically organised sections in which the items
are arranged.
<li>Labels, headings and titles. These should be explicitly associated, in
the markup or data model, with the sections of content to which they
apply.
<li>The natural language of text, particularly in multilingual content
where two or more languages are interspersed.
<li>The use of specialised notations which depart from the orthography or
character set used in a natural language. Examples include mathematical
notation and the text of computer program code.
</ul> </dd>

(end of proposal)

3. Other significant changes to the 2.0 draft (see the latest version at
http://www.w3.org/WAI/gl/WCAG20/ noting in particular those items marked
as "proposed".
Received on Wednesday, 1 November 2000 01:46:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:08 GMT