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

RE: Javascript alternatives not necessary?

From: Fentress, Robert <rfentres@vt.edu>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:24:30 -0400
Message-ID: <E7BD4EDD62660F44922C0B11258FBE8F401235@fangorn.cc.vt.edu>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

My comments surrounded by <RAF>

Rob Fentress

-----Original Message-----
From:	Jason White [mailto:jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au]
 > 
 > There is actually a general issue here that applies clearly to WCAG 1.0
 > Checkpoint 6.3 but also applies to other issues. For me, the question is,
 > for any non-text content, if that content type provides accessibility
 > features, should the guidelines require that a text alternative also be
 > provided? Using some HTML examples, if I have a Flash or SVG plugin in my
 > document, and I use the accessibility features of those technologies, do I
 > still need to provide text alternative content for the <object> element that
 > loads them? If I have client side scripts doing something interesting on the
 > page, but those scripts are accessible (assuming they're supported) do I
 > have to provide text alternatives in a <noscript>? I would interpret that
 > the requirement to provide text alternative for most images would be
 > triggered by the fact that the .gif and .jpeg formats don't support embedded
 > accessibility features - but I would argue that if an image format did, this
 > question would be equally applicable to that case.

The requirement under 1.1 is that a text equivalent be provided for
non-text content. Images, audio and any combination of these count as
non-text content. Scripts are not examples of non-text content, but
any images, sounds etc., they create are.

Thus if an image format supports the inclusion of text equivalents,
and the format is supported per guideline 4.1, then the provision of a
text equivalent by means of the pertinent features of the format
suffices to meet guideline 1.1.

<RAF>This has less to do with 1.1 than with 6.3 (WCAG 1.0), which states:

"If it is not possible to make the page usable without scripts, provide a text equivalent with the NOSCRIPT element, or use a server-side script instead of a client-side script, or provide an alternative accessible page as per checkpoint"</RAF>
Received on Monday, 26 July 2004 11:24:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:58 UTC