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

RE: 1.1 suggestion

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:46:49 -0500
To: "'John M Slatin'" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, "'Mike Barta'" <mikba@microsoft.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <auto-000060926679@spamarrest.com>

Some comments

Regarding LEVEL 1 suggestion

I don't think this construct works for Level 1.  If you don't have any
exceptions – then all of the success criteria must be met.  
In your formulation below – the first success criteria is that all non-text
content have a text alternative.   Since this says ‘all’ it means all
non-text content including spacers, decorations etc.   other checkpoints are
in addition to this – not instead of.

In Mike’s formulation – all the clauses were within a single success
criteria.  So it was possible to have the different treatments for the
different content types.   Kind of like a case statement. 
You might want to look at that.


Regarding LEVEL 2 for guideline 3.1

1 – do you mean 1.3?

2 - I don't know what this means.
"Text alternatives do not require a change of context."


Regarding LEVEL 3 for guideline 1.3

Level 3 success criteria for Guideline 3.1
1.    For multimedia content, a text document is provided that includes all
important visual information, dialogue, and other important sounds.
GV:  I don't know how you have sounds in a text doc.  Perhaps it should read
"includes all important information that was presented visually or via
dialog or important sounds."  

2.    For time based resources a synchronized transcript is provided.
 GV: what is a synchronized transcript?   What is it synchronized with?

GV: I think the existing wording which refers to a 'script or screenplay' is
better at expressing this.

Thanks 

Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
________________________________________
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of John M Slatin
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 4:10 PM
To: Mike Barta; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: 1.1 suggestion

Thanks to Mike for proposing a rewrite for Guideline 1.1.  I really like the
idea of removing the exception from the guideline itself and handling it in
the success criteria.  In the proposed wording that follows, I’ve taken this
basic idea as the starting point and then tried to re-state the success
criteria for consistency with the way they’re written throughout the
document and in keeping with our plain language goals; I’ve also
incorporated my own ideas about what the requirements should be. (My
specific concerns about some of the ideas in Mike’s proposal are listed
under “Further discussion” below).

So here’s my proposal:

<proposed wording for Guideline 1.1>
Guideline 1.1
Provide text alternatives for all non-text content.

Level 1 success criteria for Guideline 1.1
1.    Text alternatives are explicitly associated with non-text content
through markup or context.
2.    Non-text content that does not provide information or functionality
can be bypassed by assistive technology.
3.    For non-text content that is functional, such as graphical links or
buttons, text alternatives identify the purpose or function of the non-text
content.
4.    For non-text content that is used to convey information, there are
text alternatives that convey the same information.
5.    For non-text content that is intended to create a specific sensory
experience, such as music or visual art, text alternatives identify and
describe the non-text content.

Level 2 success criteria for Guideline 3.1
1.    Text alternatives do not require a change of context.

Level 3 success criteria for Guideline 3.1
1.    For multimedia content, a text document is provided that includes all
important visual information, dialogue, and other important sounds.
2.    For time based resources a synchronized transcript is provided.
3.    

</proposed wording for Guideline 1.1>

Further discussion
1.    I strongly disagree with Mike’s proposal to shift the requirement for
synchronized transcripts from Guideline 1.2 to a level 3 requirement under
1.1. I can see an argument for moving it to 1.1, but it should be a level 1
criterion.  And I would prefer to let it stand as a guideline in its own
right, wihth its own success criteria.  So I have omitted it from the list
of success criteria below.
2.    I think we need a different approach to the problem of syndicated
content.  First, the needs of users with disabilities don’t change when
content is syndicated: syndicated non-text content is still non-text
content.  Second, the specific bullet items listed in Mike’s proposal don’t
fall under 1.1 (they have to do with popup windows, blinking text, screen
refresh, etc. I would be in favor of an approach in which content
aggregators require their content providers to provide conformance
information in metadata.  Commercial sites that aggregate content could
write the requirement for conformance information into their contracts with
their suppliers; the aggreagation scripts could presumably be written to
look for the conformance information in metadata.  In a sense, this is
actually a techniques issue—it has to do with how you can meet the
requirements under specific circumstances.

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 Mike Barta
Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 6:48 pm
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: 1.1 suggestion
 this summarizes several open 1.1 issues and, imho, addresses some of the
ambiguity in the current 1.1 statement.  Personally I would prefer to not
have the difference made between syndicated content and native content, but
this is a summary of many issues and the 'ad content' issue was one of them.
The syndicated content SC is derived from those issues.
 
 
 
Guideline 1.1:
 All non-text content should have a textual alternative explicitly
associated with it.
 
Level1 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.1:
1. For content that is not syndicated from an outside source, e.g. ads, four
conditions must be met:
 • For non-text 'resources' that have no direct bearing on the content being
conveyed a text alternative must be provided with a null value.  This will
inform AT that this resource should be ignored.
 • For non-text 'resources' that have iconic or functional use a text
alternative must be provided which details the function of the element.  
 • For non-text 'resources' that encode specific information in a non-verbal
form a text alternative must be provided which presents the encoded
information verbally.
 • For non-text 'resources' which encode no specific information, but are
intended to create a sensory experience, a text alternative must be
provided.  This text should convey what the resource is, and what relevance
the resource has to the rest of the content if any.
 
2. Syndicated content must not:
 • Flash screen reader readable text or otherwise altering text stream
 • Spawn pop up windows
 • Steal or keep keyboard focus
 • Refresh content
 
Level2 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.1:
1. All content including syndicated content must conform to level one
conditions.
 
Level3 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.1:
1. A text document is provided that includes all important visual
information, dialogue, and other important sounds.
2. Textual alternatives should not require use of a particular sense to be
understandable.  If specific sensory data is referenced in the text, e.g.
'red' or 'alto', such a reference should not be essential to understanding
the text. 
3. For time based resources a synchronized transcript is provided.
 
Received on Monday, 7 June 2004 17:46:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:30 GMT