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

RE: 1.1 suggestion

From: Mike Barta <mikba@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 16:51:39 -0700
Message-ID: <7DF35A0B5F67E84B9095C21C8A97641802541669@RED-MSG-33.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "John M Slatin" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
john,
 
we are quite in agreement.  the proposal I sent out was a summary of
changes requested in bugzilla and the two that you called out bother me
as well.
 
I would argue to keep time based media in 1.1 as I categorize as binary
v. ascii more than static v. dynamic media.   I agree that this should
be higher priority.
 
on the second point I absolutely agree that aggregate content should be
a discussion in conformance rather than an SC.  I would like to see
conformance that states something like 'you may claim the least of the
conformance of your own content claim and any aggregate content claims'
where the aggregator source is responsible for making the claim as to
the conformance of any content they emit.
so if you display content from a source which makes no claim you are not
in conformance; if all of your aggregate content is level 1 then you may
claim at most level 1 for your site.
I think that it would be helpful for us to recommend an http header
standard for transmitting these claims, though not essential as the
claims are more likely to be conveyed by SLA ( contract ) than by real
time header sniffing.
 
.02
/m
 
this is different from the scoping claim as I understand that to be a
site level discussion.

________________________________

From: John M Slatin [mailto:john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu] 
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 2:10 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/
<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 19:52:03 GMT

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