W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: Suggested addition to 1.1

From: Marti <marti@agassa.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 09:26:51 -0500
Message-ID: <001a01c0936d$82ad7ce0$a3d6db3f@cais.net>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, "Anne Pemberton" <apembert@erols.com>
Anne,
 The specific place I was looking to add something like that was on
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/checkpoints.html
I think you will see that it does fit there.  This is also probably a good
place to note something about illustrations.
As for the link to a larger image being an isolated image, that kind of
thing is author's choice - The link can be simply defined as an image file
or it can be a page that includes the image. I suspect that linking to just
an image file would violate a few other guidelines/checkpoints in most
cases.
Marti


----- Original Message -----
From: "Anne Pemberton" <apembert@erols.com>
To: "Marti" <marti@agassa.com>; <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: Suggested addition to 1.1


> Marti,
>
>        I've re-read Guidelines 1, at least on draft 21, which I have
> attached below, and I don't see a place to insert what you are suggesting.
>
> I think this issue can be fully covered in the techniques, on how to do
> text equivalents for images. Techniques to use when an image is an
> illustrations, techniques to use when an image is navigational and
> techniques to use when the image is both, or even something else we
haven't
> envisioned yet.
>
> After I wrote yesterday, I thought about the situation, and when you link
> from a small image to the full sized image, the full sized image comes in
> alone, not as part of a page so cannot have an alt tag or long
description.
> All text equivalents need to be on the page with the small image, or they
> won't exist.
>
> I still feel that guidelines 1 should somehow say that the visual
> presentation must include illustrations , a minimum of one per page ...
>
> Perhaps Guideline1  could say: "Design content that be presented visually
> (images and text), auditorily, or tactually, according to the needs and
> perferences of the user."
>
> But I aggree the parentheses is a clumsy way to insert this important
point.
>
> Anne
>
>
> >Guideline 1. Design content that can be presented visually, auditorily or
> tactually, according to the needs and preferences of the user.
> >[New ]
> > [D]
> >1.1 Provide a text equivalent for all non-text content (audio clips,
> images, videos, etc.)
> >A text equivalent
> > Communicates the same information as the non-text element.
> > Serves the same function as the non-text element.
> > May contain structured content or metadata.
> > May be easily converted to braille or speech, or displayed in a larger
> font or different colors. Thereby providing access to the information for
> someone who can not see at all, who can not see well, or who needs to
> supplement visual information with auditory information.
> >Depending on the purpose and content of the non-text element, a short
> label may be appropriate while in other circumstances, a more thorough
> explanation may be required.
> >
>
> At 05:18 AM 2/10/01 -0500, you wrote:
> >Anne,
> > I think this is getting back to the difference between functional images
> >and illustrations a bit. Perhaps you can suggest some more precise
wording
> >but my point was not to have images which are there primarily as click on
> >navigation be described in detail what they look like.  This is
> >unfortunately something I have seen several sites do recently and it
makes
> >the page very difficult to use.  The kind of image/link you mention might
be
> >an exception, however I still think a 'short' version of the description
> >should go with the smaller (thumbnail) image and a more detailed one with
> >the larger. So perhaps alt=enlarge image of dog would work? Now the
question
> >is how to word the checkpoint?
> >Marti
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Anne Pemberton" <apembert@erols.com>
> >To: "Marti" <marti@agassa.com>
> >Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 7:23 PM
> >Subject: Re: Suggested addition to 1.1
> >
> >
> >> Where should you put what the picture is? If the alt text for the small
> >> image is "enlarge image" someone who can't see the image has to click
on
> >it
> >> to find out what the image is?
> >>
> >> Anne
> >>
> >> At 04:54 PM 2/9/01 -0500, you wrote:
> >> >hmm that's a good one - how about alt="enlarge image"
> >> >Marti
> >> >
> >> >----- Original Message -----
> >> >From: "Anne Pemberton" <apembert@erols.com>
> >> >To: "Marti" <marti@agassa.com>
> >> >Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 4:29 PM
> >> >Subject: Re: Suggested addition to 1.1
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> What would be the suggested alt for an image that is a link to a
larger
> >> >> version of the image?
> >> >>
> >> >> Anne
> >> >>
> >> >> At 04:04 PM 2/8/01 -0500, you wrote:
> >> >> >Valid alt ...
> >> >> >For linked images should describe function of link, not look of
image
> >> >> >Marti
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> Anne Pemberton
> >> >> apembert@erols.com
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.erols.com/stevepem
> >> >> http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Anne Pemberton
> >> apembert@erols.com
> >>
> >> http://www.erols.com/stevepem
> >> http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
> >>
> >
> >
> Anne Pemberton
> apembert@erols.com
>
> http://www.erols.com/stevepem
> http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
>
Received on Saturday, 10 February 2001 09:04:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:09 GMT