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

RE: Supporting Technology

From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 15:08:00 -0600
Message-ID: <C46A1118E0262B47BD5C202DA2490D1A798E4F@MAIL02.austin.utexas.edu>
To: "Wendy A Chisholm" <wendy@w3.org>, "Loretta Guarino Reid" <lguarino@adobe.com>, "Sailesh Panchang" <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

I agree with Wendy and Loretta that the Gateway document should
reinforce the idea that WCAG 2.0 applies to a broad spectrum of Web

Wendy's idea of providing examples of text alternatives for images used
in a variety of contexts and for a variety of purposes seems almost to
imply that the Gateway document might work by expanding upon the
examples listed in the Guidelines document.  This would help the two
documents reinforce one another-- and the Techniques documents could
then include information about how to implement the examples discussed.
(Maybe all this is already happening-- I'm not up to speed on all the
moving parts!)


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Wendy A Chisholm
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 5:54 PM
To: Loretta Guarino Reid; Sailesh Panchang
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: Supporting Technology 

I agree that we do not want to reinforce the notion that WCAG only
to HTML and need to be careful with our examples.  The Techniques
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
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
document: "This paragraph is HTML-specific. Need broader range of
or more generic explanation."  Each of those editorial notes is a to-do
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
on image, using the object element), SVG Techniques (e.g., using the
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.
think that we can ban HTML examples in the general discussion because
will be plenty of HTML-specific discussion in the HTML Techniques.



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

>   This seems ok as long as it is clear that the HTML technique is only
>example. In the gateway document, I don't think we should assume that
>always available. I think we should be careful not to reinforce the 
>left from WCAG1 that only HTML can be accessible.
>         Loretta
> >
> > In which case, is it necessary  to take great pains  to avoid  using
> > HTML technique to illustrate a  point  in the Gateway doc if HTML
> > XHTML are going to be the "host technologies"? Where applicable,
> > technology-based examples may also be included (like  say, a SMIL
> > example in the section about multi media accessibility, or a
> > based example  when talking about device independence ).   So I feel
> > 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
Received on Saturday, 20 December 2003 16:11:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:59:29 UTC