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

Highlights from Call Today

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 16:35:54 -0600
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <006301c286ae$085c3f90$ec17a8c0@GV6101>

Highlights from Call


 

Please look these over.  These were our consensus items from today and,
unless there are serious problems or concerns raised, will go into the
WCAG Draft.   

 

COMMENTS  ARE WELCOME

 

(also any corrections if I mistyped something)

 

Gregg

 

 

 

 

==============


Level 3 success criteria for checkpoint 1.2


 

3. The presentation does not require the user to view captions and the
visual presentation simultaneously in order to understand the content.


 

 

======================


FW: Checkpoint 1.1 Re-Draft.


 

1.1 For all non-text content provide a text equivalent, or, if the
content

cannot be expressed in words, provide an identifying text label.

 

Level 1:

1. Non-text content that can be expressed in words has a text

equivalent explicitly associated with it.

 

2. Non-text content that cannot be expressed in words has an

   identifying text label explicitly associated with it.

 

Level 2:

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 an indentifying text label has been used:

* The identifying text 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.

 

 

Definitions.

An identifying text label:   is a text label used when a text equivalent
cannot be used because the non-text content is such that it cannot be
expressed in words.  

* Serves as much of the function of the non-text content as possible.

* May contain structured content

 

 

==========================

 


Regard 1.2 Issues 


 

2. all significant dialogue and sounds in multimedia content are
captioned

 

3. (does not replace current #3)  For Web that is real-time audio-only,
is not time-sensitive (e.g. not news, not emergency, etc.), and is not
interactive, a transcript or other non-audio equivalent is available
from the same URI.

 

[at bottom of level 1 put]

NOTE:  Exceptions for amateur productions etc. are not made here because
they should be made in scope statements of policy setting agencies that
are using these guidelines.   

 

===============================


Slight rewording to fix typo and omission to exception at level 1 for
checkpoint  1.2


 

exception: if content is rebroadcast from another medium or resource
that complies to broadcast requirements for accessibility for the
location it was broadcast, the rebroadcast satisfies the checkpoint if
it complies with the other guidelines and if any existing accessibility
information (such as captions or audio description) are rendered in web
accessible format.   (See Level 3) 

 

 

Level 3 

 

exception:   content is rebroadcast from another medium or resource has
synchronized media equivalents for all audio and visual components of
time dependent presentations.

 

=================================

 

 
Received on Thursday, 7 November 2002 17:35:57 GMT

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