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: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 09:45:02 -0500
Message-ID: <6AC4E20EED49D411941400D0B77E52F0074B93BF@forum.cc.utexas.edu>
To: "'jonathan chetwynd'" <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

I didn't mean to take it off list, Jonathan-- I just hit Reply by accident,
instead of Reply-All.  Sorry about that!

John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Institute for Technology & Learning
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C, Mail code G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.ital.utexas.edu
 


-----Original Message-----
From: jonathan chetwynd [mailto:j.chetwynd@btinternet.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 1:28 am
To: john_slatin
Subject: Re: ftf in Linz success criteria


not sure why you took this off the list.
unfortunately I assumed you were refering to the granularity of the
description, rather than the presence of one :-)

which turns out to mean much the same when one comes to your next points. I
dont believe that for instance every frame in a movie is required to be
described in full.... not sure that I can help more than this off list

jonathan
----- Original Message -----
From: "john_slatin" <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>
To: "'jonathan chetwynd'" <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 1:17 PM
Subject: RE: ftf in Linz success criteria


> Both WCAG 1 and WCAG 2 *do* specify the granularity at which the
requirement
> for ALT text kicks in: there must be an ALT attribute for *every* 
> <img> element, for example, and there must be a textual alternative 
> for every audio event.  Although WCAG offers some guidance (in the 
> informative
notes)
> about what ALT text should *do*, authors must then use their judgment 
> in determining what counts as an *equivalent* alternative.
>
> So it turns out that my question was really twofold:
>
> First, what is the "unit," the equivalent in this context of the <img> 
> element?  Is it the word, the phrase, the sentence, the paragraph-- or 
> something much more ill-defined (from a technical standpoint): the 
> *concept*?
>
> And, second, how can we help authors understand what might count as an
> *equivalent* alternative?
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jonathan chetwynd [mailto:j.chetwynd@btinternet.com]
> Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 5:55 PM
> To: john_slatin; Jim Ley; Lisa Seeman; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: Re: ftf in Linz success criteria
>
>
> The problem you pose applies equally well to alt text.
> ie how much description is sufficient?
> It is not for us to decide, rather the author and user to negotiate.
>
> thanks
> jonathan
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "john_slatin" <john_slatin@forum.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>
> Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 10:50 PM
> Subject: RE: ftf in Linz success criteria
>
>
> >
> > 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 Monday, 22 July 2002 10:45:06 GMT

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