W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2002

RE: ftf in Linz success criteria

From: john_slatin <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 16:50:22 -0500
Message-ID: <6AC4E20EED49D411941400D0B77E52F0074B93B7@forum.cc.utexas.edu>
To: "'jonathan chetwynd'" <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>, Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>, Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

Jonathan, screen readers don't *create* text equivalents: they only report
those that a human author composes.

In another message, you contended that it would be possible to create visual
equivalents for nearly "all messages."  I'm not clear what "message" means
in this context.  I'm also not clear about the granularity-- the level of
detail at which you'd like the requirement for visual equivalents to apply.


Thanks!
John 

-----Original Message-----
From: jonathan chetwynd [mailto:j.chetwynd@btinternet.com]
Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 7:56 PM
To: Jim Ley; Lisa Seeman; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: ftf in Linz success criteria



Undoubtedly some of the creation of non-text equivalents might be created by
user agents, much as screen-readers currently do.

In the meantime, there are very good reasons for asking authors to provide
resources they may have available.

jonathan chetwynd

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Ley" <jim@jibbering.com>
To: "Lisa Seeman" <seeman@netvision.net.il>; <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 12:33 PM
Subject: Re: ftf in Linz success criteria


>
> Lisa Seeman:
>
> > -supply an illustration for each instruction
> > - create a non text equivalent for all textual content.
>
> Are these two equivalent? (well the second contains the first.)
>
> Do you have a definition of what an "instuction" is?
>
> How many "non-text equivalents" should you include for each text-content?
> ie is including just audio sufficient, if so why? if not how many
> equivalents do we provide?
>
> Is there a summary of discussion at the f2f to avoid us having to go over
> well discussed topics?
>
> > let the debate begin......
>
> :-)
>
> Jim.
>
>
Received on Sunday, 21 July 2002 17:50:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:19 GMT