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

Re: Illustrations for content

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001 09:59:31 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20010803094857.00a11610@pop.erols.com>
To: jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au, Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
Cc: "Matt May" <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>, "Wendy A Chisholm" <wendy@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Jason,

         Would it help any to separate the presence of a non-text element 
from it's purpose ... for example: If a non-text element is correctly 
identified as "content", it probably breaks down barriers for some people 
.... the extent of which is determined subjectively by comparing the text 
and the non-text element and see what function they each perform in 
communicating.

         If we talk about a tool like Bobby, it can detect the presence of 
a non-text element on a page, and if none is there at all, notify the 
author that the content needs to be illustrated. The presence of a single 
*.gif on a page would meet Bobby, just as the presence of something in 
<alt> passes Bobby. It doesn't insure that the intent of either <alt> or 
<img> captured in the guidelines is carried out, just the physical 
presence.... the rest is subjective ....

                                         Anne



At 10:03 AM 8/3/01 +1000, Jason White wrote:
>Thus I think there are several issues surrounding checkpoint 3.4:
>
>1. Clarifying what, precisely, is required of content developers. This
>    can be achieved to some extent in the examples accompanying the
>    checkpoint, in tecniques documents, and in any success criteria
>    that may be associated with the checkpoint. Note that the current
>    "success criteria" will be treated as examples in the next draft.
>    Naturally, as several participants in this discussion have
>    mentioned, it is not possible to provide authors with instruction
>    on how to communicate (visually, auditorily etc.) in these
>    guidelines, any more than one can teach clarity and precision in
>    writing by way of an explication of checkpoint 3.3.
>
>2. Determining under what circumstances "non-text supplements":
>
>a. allow individuals who would otherwise find it impossible to access
>the content, to access it (this corresponds to the definition of
>Priority 1 in WCAG 1.0).
>
>b. Remove significant barriers to access for identifiable groups of
>users by substantially facilitating comprehension of the content (WCAG
>1.0, priority 2).
>
>c. Aid comprehension, but do not remove significant barriers to
>access.
>
>d. Are unhelpful and/or unnecessary.
>
>Thus I would summarise the issue as involving questions of success
>criteria, conformance and prioritization. The examples and discussion
>in the draft (as have emerged from recent discussion) aim to clarify
>the first point to some extent (even if success criteria as such prove
>to be unattainable) but the conformance and prioritization issues
>remain unresolved and I think it is here that most of the vexing
>problems surrounding this checkpoint lie. Needless to say, the same
>issues apply to other checkpoints in the document as well.

Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com

http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Friday, 3 August 2001 10:05:01 GMT

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