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

RE: wording for 1.1 RE: Example: Real-time feed of satellite photos

From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 08:54:22 -0500
Message-ID: <C46A1118E0262B47BD5C202DA2490D1A0183AF8F@MAIL02.austin.utexas.edu>
To: "John M Slatin" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>, "Yvette P. Hoitink" <y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl>
Cc: "WAI WCAG List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Ugh.  My proposed rewording *shouldI have said:

Provide text alternatives for non-text content. The text alternative
should be equivalent to the non-text content, meaning that it serves the
same function or conveys the same information as the non-text content.  

A text label may be used to satisfy this guideline if one or more of the
following conditions is true:
1. The purpose of the non-text content is to create a specific sensory
experience (as in music or visual art)
2. The non-text content is generated, transmitted, and displayed in
real-time by automated means (as when spacecraft transmit images from
extraterrestrial locations)

(the difference is in the line about how a text label satisfies the
requirement-- I changed it from "A text label satisfies this requirement
when ..." to "A text label may be used to satisfy this requirement when
..."
  The earlier version seemed to describe conditions for the text label
itself, rather than specifying when it would be appropriate to use one.)

"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 John M Slatin
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 8:42 am
To: Charles McCathieNevile; Yvette P. Hoitink
Cc: WAI WCAG List
Subject: RE: wording for 1.1 RE: Example: Real-time feed of satellite
photos



Another alternative proposal for rewording 1.1.  It still doesn't say
anything about spacers or "purely" decorative images (curlicues, etc.),
and I don't think the item about real-time content is quite right yet,
but maybe this will help.

<begin proposed>
Provide text alternatives for non-text content. The text alternative
should be equivalent to the non-text content, meaning that it serves the
same function or conveys the same information as the non-text content.  

A text label satisfies this guideline if one or more of the following
conditions is true: 1. The purpose of the non-text content is to create
a specific sensory experience (as in music or visual art) The non-text
content is generated, transmitted, and displayed in real-time by
automated means (as when spacecraft transmit images from
extraterrestrial locations) </end proposed> 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 Charles McCathieNevile
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 4:01 am
To: Yvette P. Hoitink
Cc: 'WAI WCAG List'
Subject: wording for 1.1 RE: Example: Real-time feed of satellite photos



On Thu, 6 May 2004, Yvette P. Hoitink wrote:

>
>Jonathan O'Donnel's suggestion:
>> > For non-text content, provide an equivalent text alternative. If
>> > the text alternative cannot serve the same fuction or convey the 
>> > same information, provide a text label or a description.
>
>Gregg Vanderheijden's remark:
>
>> Very nice Jonathan.
>>
>> We need an exception for spacers and perhaps some pure decorative --
>> but maybe it is better to have a little decorative described than 
>> risk lots of content that is counted as decorative.  Also may make 
>> testing easier.
>
>Personally, I do not think the either-or is explicit enough in
>Jonathan's suggestion. It doesn't say the text label or description 
>comes _instead_ of the equivalent if the text alternative cannot serve 
>the same function. I know that it's implied, but I think we have to be 
>explicit.

I don't know that it is implied. I think a text alternative needs to be
available always, although as Gregg notes below sometimes the most
appropriate is null text. But there is no reason not to have a
description as well for almost all text, although in some cases it is
extremely low priority and low value. In cases where the text
alternative doesn't really achieve the function of what it replaces, it
is more important.

cheers

Chaals

>Gregg: I don't think we need an exception for spacers, that could go in

>the gateway techniques. Jonathan's suggestion tells you to provide an
>equivalent text alternative. We can tell people in gateway techniques 
>that for spacers, "" is the best equivalent text alternative.
Received on Thursday, 6 May 2004 09:54:23 GMT

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