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

Checkpoint 1.1 Re-Draft.

From: Mirabella, Mathew J <Mathew.Mirabella@team.telstra.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 12:10:22 +1100
Message-ID: <73388857A695D31197EF00508B08F298061E3B9C@ntmsg0131.corpmail.telstra.com.au>
To: "'W3C-WAI-GL List'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

All.

Below is my first go at the re-draft.
Comments are welcome.  Discussion is encouraged.

Mat.


Checkpoint 1.1 For all non-text content, provide a text alternative for the
function or information the non-text content was intended to convey.


Success Criteria

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at the Minimum Level if:

1.  Non-text content that can be expressed in words has a text-equivalent
explicitly associated with it.
*  The text equivalent should fulfil the same function as the author
intended for the non-text content (i.e. it presents all of the intended
information and/or achieves the same function of the non-text content).

2.  Non-text content that can not be expressed in words has a descriptive
textual label provided as its text-alternative.
*  A descriptive textual label should act as a text-equivalent wherever
practically possible and should at least express the technical purpose or
meaning of the non-text content (if any), (E.g. a description of the target
of the link, etc.).

3.  Wherever possible, text equivalents should be used rather than
descriptive textual labels.  I.e. descriptive textual labels should only be
used if the non-text content cannot be expressed in words.


You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at Level 2 if:

1.  If a text-equivalent has been used:
* The text-equivalent has been reviewed and is believed to fulfil the same
function as the author intended for the non-text content (i.e. it presents
all of the intended information and/or achieves the same function of the
non-text content).

2.  If a descriptive textual label has been used:
* A review has shown that the non-text content could not be expressed in
words, and thus a text-equivalent could not be fully implemented.
* The descriptive textual label has been reviewed and is believed to convey
as much of the function and meaning of the non-text content as possible to
match the authors intent.

3.  A conformance claim associated with the content asserts conformance to
this checkpoint at level 2.


You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at Level 3 if:

(presently no additional criteria for this level.)


Definitions (informative)

A text equivalent:
* Serves the same function as the non-text content was intended to serve.
* Communicates the same information as the non-text content was intended to
convey.
* May contain structured content or metadata.

A descriptive textual label:
* Should only be used if a text equivalent cannot be used because the
non-text content is such that it cannot be expressed in words.
* Describes the non-text content as richly as practically possible.
* At least serves the same technical function as the non-text content was
intended to serve, (E.g. a description of the target of the link, etc.).

* Serves as much of the function of the non-text content as possible.
* May contain structured content or metadata.

Note: Text-equivalents and descriptive textual labels should be easily
convertible to Braille or speech, displayed in a larger font or different
colours, fed to language translators or abstracting software, etc.

Non-text content:

Is considered in two categories:
* Non-text content that can be described in words.  E.g. images used as
navigation links such as arrows, etc.
* Non-text content that cannot be described in words.  E.g. the audio track
of a symphony, etc.


Issues for discussion:

1.  I have used the phrase "text alternative" in the text of the checkpoint
itself.  This deviates somewhat from text equivalent because we may need to
consider the text equivalent and the descriptive textual label as two
subclasses of text alternatives.
2.  What do people think of the term "descriptive textual label"?  I have
included the word "textual" here to make it clear that the label should not
be non-text content itself.
3.  We need some more definitions here with good examples of each type of
non-text content (i.e. expressible in words or not expressible in words).
4.  Do we need to review the benefits section?




Mathew J. Mirabella.
HF&SR / Centre For Accessibility.  Telstra Research Laboratories.
Phone: +61 3 9253 6712.  Fax: +61 3 9253 6665.
Address:  2/M2, 770 Blackburn Road, Clayton VIC, 3168, Australia.
Web:  http://www.telstra.com.au/accessibility
Intranet:  http://www.in.telstra.com.au/ism/centreforaccessibility
Access:  http://www.telstra.com.au/accessforeveryone
Member:  W3C WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group.
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL

An Italian inventor built the first typewriter to help a blind countess
write legibly. Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone because his wife
and mother were deaf. The remote control was invented for people with
limited mobility. Today's office scanners evolved from technologies created
to make talking books for the blind.  From the typewriter to the remote
control, special access tools developed for disabled individuals eventually
become conveniences for everyone.
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 20:25:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:20 GMT