W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: Conformance Testing Proposal

From: Doyle Burnett <dburnett@sesa.org>
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 08:23:43 -0800
To: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>, W3C Web Content <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BC96C80F.2524%dburnett@sesa.org>

Hi John and the List:

I only want to respond to John's question #3.  Question follows -

3. Why is it still necessary to require redundant text links for
client-side image maps? Are there still user agents that don't support
client-side image maps that have valid alt attributes for <area>
elements? 

Response follows -

I did some testing with regard to client-side image maps on different (okay,
Netscape's newest browser) - David MacDonald did testing as well.  As I
recall, David found client-side image maps not to work with Netscape when
using JAWS and I believe Home Page Reader.  I found Netscape to be very
unpredictable with regard to client-side image maps when using JAWS.

For now, it seems leaving redundant links as a good technique is probably a
good thing.  Also, does anyone know how Apple's new operating system with
it's built-in speaking interface will handle client-side image maps that
have been properly tagged?

Just my thoughts.

Doyle

Doyle Burnett
Education and Training Specialist
Multiple Disabilities Program
Special Education Service Agency
dburnett@sesa.org
Www.sesa.org
-- 



3. Why is it still necessary to require redundant text links for
client-side image maps? Are there still user agents that don't support
client-side image maps that have valid alt attributes for <area>
elements?

On 4/5/04 8:09 AM, "John M Slatin" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu> wrote:

> 
> Thanks, Chris. I agree that something like this will be helpful for many
> developers who want to do the right thing.
> 
> Some questions:
> 1. Is this list intended as a preliminary proposal for a
> technology-specific checklist? If not, what relationship does it have to
> such a checklist?
> 2. Can this checklist be numbered consistently with WCAG 2.0 to make it
> easier for developers to tell when they're meeting WCAG success
> criteria?
> 3. Why is it still necessary to require redundant text links for
> client-side image maps? Are there still user agents that don't support
> client-side image maps that have valid alt attributes for <area>
> elements?
> 
> 
> Some comments about longdesc and d-links:
> 1. We should not *require* redundant use of longdesc *and* d-link for
> <img> elements that need additional description.   If support for
> longdesc isn't widespread enough to be reliable, we should require that
> descriptions be provided either on-page or in a separate, linked
> file/window.
> 2. On pages that display multiple images that require description,
> link-text pointing to the descriptions should identify the image to
> which the description refers.
> 
> Thanks!
> John
> 
> "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 Chris Ridpath
> Sent: Monday, April 05, 2004 10:26 am
> To: WAI WCAG List
> Subject: Conformance Testing Proposal
> 
> 
> 
> Page authors need to know what they must do in order to conform to the
> WAI guidelines. We must spell out in clear terms what must be done to
> achieve compliance.
> 
> The current situation is that nobody really knows if their site's
> content complies or not. This is because the WCAG 1 was open to
> interpretation. Interpreting the guidelines has been an impediment to
> page authors performing the simple but necessary things that make
> content accessible. Current research has been critical of the WCAG 1
> because of the way that people must interpret the guidelines.
> 
> The current state of accessibility conformance "I can't define it, but I
> know it when I see it" must be changed.
> 
> My proposal is that we state, for each technology, the things that must
> be done in order for a page to claim conformance. This is possible and
> practical and is what page authors require.
> 
> For example we require that, in HTML, all IMG elements have an ALT
> attribute. If any IMG element does not have an ALT attribute then the
> page cannot claim conformance.
> 
> The list of requirements would be subject to periodic change by the WAI.
> For example in 2004 we require a d-link for any IMG element that has a
> LONGDESC attribute. In 2005 or 2006 as the LONGDESC is better supported
> the d-link requirement would be dropped. As better tests for semantic
> content are developed they could be added as requirements.
> 
> The initial list of requirements would likely not cover 100% of
> accessibility problems but it would improve over time and would be much
> better than the current situation. Simply because we can not define all
> accessibility requirements now is not a good reason for being vague.
> 
> A clear list of requirements would ensure that page authors know exactly
> what to put in their web pages. It would increase web accessibility.
> 
> Clear requirements would mean that people, or machines, could actually
> test for compliance with the guidelines. Many authors want to do the
> right thing but don't know how.
> 
> As a starting point, here's what I think the WCAG 2 requirements for
> HTML
> are:
> http://checker.atrc.utoronto.ca/servlet/ShowGuide?name=wcag-2-0-html-tec
> hs.xml&lang=eng
> 
> I'm sure that this list has errors and omissions but it proves that we
> can do this.
> 
> We can, and must, clearly describe what the guidelines mean.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 5 April 2004 12:23:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:29 GMT