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

Proposal: checkpoint 3.4

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 18:40:24 -0400
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20010730182836.00c2b670@localhost>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
I realize that I hadn't finished cleaning up the success criteria for 
Checkpoint 3.4.  However, y'all have had some great suggestions over the 
last few days.  I was planning on using charles' proposal from a ways back, 
but wasn't sure how to do it.  Sean's proposal and Anne's suggestions 
helped me create a framework.  Rather than using Charles' proposals to 
create 3 separate checkpoints (as he had suggested), I made his proposals 
part of the success criteria.

The checkpoint is heavily weighted towards Anne's side of the argument 
right now, so I do expect some opposition.  However, I also feel that if I 
can at least get Anne to agree to something I've written, I will feel some 
satisfaction.   At this point, Anne has never completely agreed with 
anything I've written.  If the rest of you agree as well, even better.  <grin/>

Here are the things that I have merged:
1. WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 14.2 Supplement text with graphic or auditory 
presentations where they will facilitate comprehension of the page. 
[Priority 3]

2. The previous WCAG 2.0 checkpoint 3.4 Use multimedia to illustrate concepts.

3. Sean's proposal (which Anne agreed with!)
3.4 Utilise content in a wide range of modalities where possible to assist 
the users of your content.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2001JulSep/0190.html

4. Charles' proposals
For any description of a process or of relationships, provide a graphic 
equivalent.
For any page which has a 'concrete thing' as a primary topic, provide a 
graphic illustration of that thing.
For a page that deals with an organisation or concept for which there is a 
well known symbol, include that symbol on the page.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2001JulSep/0227.html

Here's my proposal. Note again, that I am trying to find something that 
Anne agrees with and then we can see where everyone else disagrees (but 
don't feel obliged to disagree, you are more than welcome to agree. <grin/>).

Regardless, I am concerned that the success criteria does not contain an 
exhaustive list.  Can we create one?  Is it far off?

3.4 Supplement text with non-text content.

Definitions
Non-text content is content that is not text, e.g. images, audio clips, 
videos, animations, etc.

Benefits
Sounds, graphics, videos and animations can help make concepts presented in 
a Web site easier to understand, especially for people with cognitive, 
reading, or learning disabilities or those who are unfamiliar with the 
language of the text of the site.

Success criteria
* For any description of a process or of relationships, provide a graphic 
equivalent.
* For any page which has a concrete concept as a primary topic, provide
                a graphic illustration and/or
                an audio clip and/or
                a virtual simulation and/or
                a video and/or
                link to content that contains illustrations
of the concrete concept. A concrete concept is a person, place or thing.
For example, an animal, a plant, or a product. It can also stand for a 
class of nouns - cats, birds, computers, mountains, hotel rooms.
* For a page that describes an organisation or concept for which there is a 
well known symbol or logo, include that symbol or logo in the content.
* For data information, provide a graph, chart, or some other common visual 
representation of the data.
* When referencing sounds, link to a clip of the sound.

Thanks and Be well,
--wendy
--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
seattle, wa usa
/--
Received on Monday, 30 July 2001 18:29:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:11 GMT