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

New rewrite of Guideline 1.1 (action item)

From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:19:02 -0500
Message-ID: <C46A1118E0262B47BD5C202DA2490D1A03317D47@MAIL02.austin.utexas.edu>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
This message responds to a request from Wendy.
<18 June 2004 proposed wording for Guideline 1.1>

Guideline 1.1

Provide equivalent 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 a data model, and one of the following is true:.

a.     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; or,

b.    for non-text content that is used to convey information, text
alternatives convey the same information; or,  

c.     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.

2.    Non-text content that does not provide information or
functionality  can be ignored by assistive technology.



Level 2 success criteria for Guideline 1.1

1.    No Level 2 success criteria for Guideline 1.1.


Level 3 success criteria for Guideline 1.1

1.    For multimedia content, a text document is provided that includes
descriptions of all important visual information as well as  transcripts
of dialogue and other important sounds.



</18 June 2004 proposed wording for guideline 1.1>



I've been asked to review the discussion that took place on the list
following Mike Barta's 03 June message summarizing issues that had been
raised in connection with Guideline 1.1 and proposing a strategy for
addressing those concerns [1].


On 07 June I sent a prposed rewrite to the list [2] which sparked a
number of suggestions; I sent a rewrite on 08 June [3] that attempted to
address those concerns.  The proposal above (the 18 June rewrite) is
close to the proposed rewrite I sent on 08 June but includes several
changes to take account of issues that surfaced in the ensuing

1.    L1 SC 1 now specifies that text alternatives are to be associated
with non-text content "through markup or a data model" and drops the
term "context." This change accommodates Jason's point about the danger
of excluding technologies that don't depend on markup; it also addresses
Joe Clark's comments about the risk of seeming to encourage explicit but
feeble associations such as "this image is described at the bottom of
the page" without a way to get to the description and back again. 

2.    The 08 June proposal included a Level 2 success criterion which
said "Text alternatives can be accessed without requiring an extreme
change of context." There had been no such criterion in previous working
drafts, and it is deleted from the current proposal-the ensuing
discussion persuaded me that it does not make sense to make this a
blanket requirement for every instance of non-text content that requires
extended description, etc.   Good comments on this point from Jim
Thatcher, Cynthia, Joe, Gregg, etc. Other useful comments from Chaals
and others.

I'm becoming increasingly convinced that there are items currently
listed under Guideline 1.2 that might better be covered under 1.1, but I
feel it's still too early to try that.







"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/


Received on Friday, 18 June 2004 17:19:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:49 UTC