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

Re: Question on content relevance

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 19:20:12 -0800
Message-Id: <a05010401b6e9a9efa4b2@[]>
To: Adam Victor Reed <areed2@calstatela.edu>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 7:01 PM -0800 3/29/01, Adam Victor Reed wrote:
>Two questions:
>1. Is minimizing irrelevant detail something that should be explicitly
>included in the (upper case G) Guidelines?


I'm wondering if we need a Compendium of Useful Suggestions in
addition to our Capital-G Guidelines.

There are a number of things which blur the lines between "access"
and "usability" and don't fit well into our model of checkpoints,
priorities, and so on -- but which are still valid concepts which
don't deserve to be forgotten about merely because they don't fit
into the framework which we've constructed.

I feel that this is an important principle.  But I feel it's also
very difficult to codify into a unified, general guideline, let
alone a yes/no checkpoint.  There are a number of other such
"good things to do" which, if part of the general "mindset" while
creating a page, will lead to more usable/accessible web sites,
but which strictly speaking are not binary checkpoints.

I would hate to have them get lost.

>2. Is this a valid concern with respect to checkpoint instructions?
>For example, should one be concerned that the "all" in "a text
>equivalent for _all_ non-text content" will lead developers to include
>irrelevant elements of illustrations in the replacement text?

It's possible.  Our yes/no approach to checkpoints means that
"do a sufficient amount" style requirements must be carefully
written and the supporting material must explain exactly what
is meant.

If we provide good examples, we can minimize the possibilities
of confusion.  Also, we may be able to reduce the damage done
by promoting both the use of "replacement" and "descriptive"
text equivalents.  ALT vs. LONGDESC -- I'm not sure if anyone
feels that you can have "too much longdesc"?  (It may be
possible, though.)


Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
Received on Thursday, 29 March 2001 22:28:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:36 UTC