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

RE: 1.1 suggestion

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 14:57:44 +1000
Message-ID: <16583.59976.162168.332108@jdc.local>
To: "Cynthia Shelly" <cyns@exchange.microsoft.com>
Cc: "Mike Barta" <mikba@microsoft.com>, "Web Content Guidelines" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Cynthia Shelly writes:
 > 
 > Ok, it makes sense (at level 2 or 3) to not require the user to do extra
 > stuff to get the description, but calling it "extreme changes of
 > context" seems confusing. Could we instead say "Text alternatives can be
 > accessed without additional action by the user" or something like that?

First, I note that the concept of a "long description" is very
HTML-centric. We need to allow for scenarios in which different
devices receive different presentations of the information, some of
them involving non-text content where this can be rendered for the
user, and others not. We also need to recognize that in some
technologies or approaches to content design there may be no
distinction between long description and short, just two different
versions of a piece of content, one of them essentially structured
text, and the other non-text content.

Thus I would rather not rely on concepts such as "long description" in
the guidelines if possible.

Secondly, if the description is "explicitly associated" with the
non-text content, then surely the user agent, the server-side
adaptation service, or whatever, can satisfy the user's preference by
rendering the description automatically, or only in response to the
user's action. I am not sure how an additional criterion at levels 2
or 3 would work, as it involves making assumptions about how the
content will be processed, for example that it will be read directly
by a user agent that handles descriptions in certain ways.
Received on Thursday, 10 June 2004 00:58:00 GMT

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