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

Re: ftf in Linz success criteria

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 13:47:16 -0400 (EDT)
To: jonathan chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
cc: john_slatin <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>, Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>, Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0207221344030.21640-100000@tux.w3.org>

Actually the user and the author on the Web are often not in a position to
negotiate - if the authors haven't ensured a particular piece of information
is included, there is not much the user can do about it.

I think this group does have to go further than just giving a general idea.
It is not easy to do so, but I do believe it is possible, and useful when
people who are not experts try to put our ideas into practice.

Cheers

Chaals

On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, jonathan chetwynd wrote:

>
>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.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI  fax: +33 4 92 38 78 22
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Monday, 22 July 2002 13:47:21 GMT

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