W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2003

RE: WCAG 2.0 internal draft

From: john_slatin <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 09:18:30 -0600
Message-ID: <6AC4E20EED49D411941400D0B77E52F0074B9E96@forum.cc.utexas.edu>
To: "'gv@trace.wisc.edu'" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

I like the idea of deleting the phrase about content that cannot be
expressed in words.  I'm neutral about including the exception in the
checkpoint language.  But if we do that, I think we need to find less
abstract language than "modality-specific."  I do not yet have a positive
suggestion to offer (sorry!) but will work on it and try to come up with
something.

John

John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Institute for Technology & Learning
University of Texas at Austin
1 University Station G9600
FAC 248C
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: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 1:08 am
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: FW: WCAG 2.0 internal draft





On Nov 8th, Mathew Mirabella posted a suggested edit to 1.1 as you noted
Jason in your email (at the bottom of this email)    For completeness I am
pasting Mathews email immediately below these comments.

I looked this over and have the following comments, questions or
reservations about using this proposal as is.  Since I make suggestions and
since these have not hit the list I am posting them to the list as
suggestions.  


COMMENT 1 

- I think we can remove "unless it cannot be expressed in words"  from the
Guideline but we have to include something that gives the general concept of
a modality specific exception ----  or else it isn't completely accurate
since we put the exception in below I suggest we add a parenthetical which
reads...

(unless some of the information is modality specific such as a musical
performance or a modern dance.)

This is something that a lot of people don't get until you give them an
example.  Thus I think the i.e. language should be in the checkpoint to make
it accurate.



COMMENT 2 

- The .	Eagle School - nanotech Tutorial\comments talk about taking the
advice from level one and putting it as an Assertion of review (or
assumption of review) at level 2.     I don't think we can do that even
though we suggested it earlier.   If it stays as an assumption (which is the
way he wrote it) then it is not testable.    If you make it into an
assertion (e.g. The site asserts that ....) then we violate our most recent
decision to not include assertions as SC.   

So it looks like it has to stay as a comment under Level 1.

Yes? No?

Gregg



================
TEXT OF MATHEWS POST STARTS HERE.
All.

Below I have included the next draft of the parts of checkpoint 1.1 which
have been altered as a result of re-drafting and discussion.  Items inside
braces {} are issues for specific comments or discussion.  Please correct me
if I have any of this wrong re today's teleconference.


Guideline 1 - Perceivable
Ensure that all intended function and information can be presented in
form(s) that can be perceived by any user.
{Here I have removed the "... except those aspects which cannot be expressed
in words." What do we think of this?}


Checkpoint 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.


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. 2. Non-text content that cannot be expressed
in words has an identifying text label explicitly associated with it. {In
the current working draft, we have a sub-point inside 1. above, which
states: "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)."  As
Greg's Highlights email suggests, have we agreed to get rid of that and
leave it for level 2?}

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at Level 2 if:
1.  If a text-equivalent has been used, it 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 identifying text label has been
used, it 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.

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at Level 3 if: (Presently no
additional criteria for this level). {?} 

The following are additional ideas for enhancing a site along this
particular dimension: (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.
Received on Thursday, 9 January 2003 10:18:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:21 GMT