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

Re: Supporting Technology

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2003 18:53:34 -0500
Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20031219183113.01639008@localhost>
To: Loretta Guarino Reid <lguarino@adobe.com>, "Sailesh Panchang" <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

I agree that we do not want to reinforce the notion that WCAG only applies 
to HTML and need to be careful with our examples.  The Techniques Gateway 
should be a high-level discussion about making content accessible and I 
don't think it should include technology-specific examples.  Instead of 
talking about how to use the alt attribute on the image element, we should 
discuss how to write a text equivalent for a variety of images used in a 
variety of contexts.

Although the current draft of the Techniques Gateway [1] has several 
HTML-specific examples, refer to the editorial notes scattered through the 
document: "This paragraph is HTML-specific. Need broader range of examples, 
or more generic explanation."  Each of those editorial notes is a to-do for 
the editor to generalize the concept so that it is not HTML-specific.

If I interpret the consensus of the Techniques Task Force correctly, I 
think the vision of the Gateway is:
After each general discussion we will link to a list of relevant 
techniques.  For example, after the text equivalents discussion in the 
Gateway, we'll have several links into the HTML Techniques (e.g., using alt 
on image, using the object element), SVG Techniques (e.g., using the title 
and desc elements with the g element), etc.  But we will not have HTML 
examples included in the discussion of text equivalents in the Gateway.  I 
think that we can ban HTML examples in the general discussion because there 
will be plenty of HTML-specific discussion in the HTML Techniques.

--wendy

[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-GATEWAY-20031205.html

At 06:21 PM 12/19/2003, Loretta Guarino Reid wrote:

>Sailesh,
>
>   This seems ok as long as it is clear that the HTML technique is only an
>example. In the gateway document, I don't think we should assume that HTML is
>always available. I think we should be careful not to reinforce the 
>impression
>left from WCAG1 that only HTML can be accessible.
>
>         Loretta
>
> >
> > In which case, is it necessary  to take great pains  to avoid  using an
> > HTML technique to illustrate a  point  in the Gateway doc if HTML
> > XHTML are going to be the "host technologies"? Where applicable, other
> > technology-based examples may also be included (like  say, a SMIL based
> > example in the section about multi media accessibility, or a scripting
> > based example  when talking about device independence ).   So I feel we
> > we should not as a rule ban HTML(or its derivative: XHTML) based
> > examples as it is the primary host technology and is widely used and
> > understood.
> >   Sailesh Panchang
> > Senior Accessibility Engineer=20
> > Deque Systems,11180  Sunrise Valley Drive,=20
> > 4th Floor, Reston VA 20191
> > Tel: 703-225-0380 Extension 105=20
> > E-mail: sailesh.panchang@deque.com
> > Fax: 703-225-0387

-- 
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
http://www.w3.org/WAI/
/-- 
Received on Friday, 19 December 2003 18:53:57 GMT

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