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

RE: [Issue 320] Add definition to 1.1 for ability to be expressed in words

From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 09:16:35 -0600
Message-ID: <C46A1118E0262B47BD5C202DA2490D1A1DFB7C@MAIL02.austin.utexas.edu>
To: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

This is John.  I believe this issue should be closed.

Over a month ago, I posted a proposed rewording to the list.  There was
some discussion, and I was under the impression that he new wording had
been approved at least by tacit consent.    As you'll see, the phrase
about content that can be expressed in words has been dropped, and
replaced with a proviso that kicks in when the intent of the content is
to create a specific sensory experience.


Here is the wording I think we agreed on:
== proposed rewording begins==
1.1          For non-text content, text equivalents are provided that
serve the same purpose or convey the same information as the non-text
content, except when the purpose of the non-text content is to create a
specific sensory experience (for example, musical performances, visual
art) in which case a text label and description are sufficient.
== proposed rewording ends==

Comment: I would suggest changing "musical performances" to "musical
performances that do not include words" (because in such a case captions
might be required).  

Thanks.



"Good design is accessible design." 
Please note our new name and URL!
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/


 



-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 5:49 pm
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: FW: [Issue 320] Add definition to 1.1 for ability to be
expressed in words



This is good.
Except we need something besides "a few words"
Otherwise there is no longdesc (or d-link).  Just very short alt text.

But if we say "expressed in 50 words or less" someone will ask where the
number 50 came from.

But all limits are eventually arbitrary.  

Anyone want to nominate a nice objective number so this is testable? 

 
Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 


-----Original Message-----
From: bugzilla-daemon@webby.trace.wisc.edu
[mailto:bugzilla-daemon@webby.trace.wisc.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 10:50 AM
To: gv@trace.wisc.edu
Subject: [Issue 320] Add definition to 1.1 for ability to be expressed
in words

http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=320





------- Additional Comments From caldwell@trace.wisc.edu  2003-10-28
10:50
-------
SIDAR's WCAG2-espa group writes:

3)Guideline 1: Core Checkpoints: 1.1

URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-WCAG20-20030624/#text-equiv

We think it's a basic conceptual error to use the expression "non-text
content that can be expressed in words". What does it mean? All content
*can* be expressed in words or described in some way. With all our
respect it's like saying "oops sorry,  I remained speachless" in the ALT
attribute of an image. When one reads Required Success Criteria 2. of
this checkpoint, one thinks you are talking about "non-text content that
can not be expressed in *a few* words". So, shoudn't the Checkpoint
read: "1.1 [CORE] All non-text content that can be expressed in a few
words has a text equivalent of the function or information that the
non-text content was intended to convey. [was 1.1]". And Required
Success Criteria 2. should read: "non-text content that can not be
expressed in a few words has a descriptive label provided as its
text-equivalent"

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2003Sep/0009.
html

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
Received on Thursday, 30 October 2003 10:16:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:26 GMT