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

Re issue 330: proposed wording to replace "explicitly associated"

From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 09:09:41 -0500
Message-ID: <C46A1118E0262B47BD5C202DA2490D1A03317F9D@MAIL02.austin.utexas.edu>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

-         This is the fourth and last of several messages proposing new
wording for success criteria that contain one of the following phrases,
which were discussed during the 5 August WCAG WG call: 

 

The terms were listed in the agenda [1].

1.    Derived programmatically (GL 1.3 L1 SC1 and SC2)

2.    Programmatically identified (GL 3.2 L2 SC1)

3.    Programmatically determined (GL 3.1 L2 SC2, and SC6)

4.    Programmatically located (GL 3.1 L1 SC2 and GL 3.1 L2 SC1)

 

As I understood the discussion, people who participated in the call
agreed about the following (I don't remember whether there was formal
consensus):

1.    The four terms should be reduced to two:

a.     Proposal: replace "derived programmatically" and
"programmatically identified" with "programmatically determined."

2.    Proposal: Define programmatically determined to mean "is available
in a standard machine-readable form (e.g., in a standard markup, data
model or metadata)"

3.    Further attempts to define "programmatically located" should be
deferred until after the 11 August joint call with PFWG.

 

Further discussion off-list about potential ambiguities of the word
"standard" led to a further refinement of the definition of
"programmatically determined": Programmatically determined="available in
machine-readable form (e.g., in markup, metadata, or a data model)."

There was a related discussion off-list about the term "explicitly
associated" (used in 1.1 L1)  The question was whether an association
that could be recognized by humans but not by user agents would satisfy
the intent of "explicitly associated."      The feeling was that an
association that could be recognized only by a human and not by a user
agent was not good enough.

 

Based on these discussions, I've taken the affected success criteria and
(1) replaced the now-obsolete terms (derived programmatically and
programmatically identified) with programmatically determined and (2)
replaced programmatically determined with the definition language. I've
done the same thing for 1.1, the only occurrence of "explicitly
associated" in the 30 July WD [2].

 



Success criteria that currently contain the phrase "explicitly
associated"


Success criteria for Guideline 1.1 L1 SC1


<current>

1. Text-alternatives are explicitly associated with non-text content and
one of the following is true: [I]

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; or,

D. Multimedia alternatives are provided according to guideline 1.2; or,

E. Non-text content that does not provide information or functionality
is marked such that it can be ignored by assistive technology

</current>

<proposed>

1. Text alternatives are associated with all non-text content. 

2. The association between each item of non-text content and its text
alternative is available in a standard machine-readable form (e.g., in
standard markup, data model, or metadata).

3. 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; or,

D. Multimedia alternatives are provided according to guideline 1.2; or,

E. Non-text content that does not provide information or functionality
is marked such that it can be ignored by assistive technology

 </proposed>

 

 

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JulSep/0318.html
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JulSep/0318.html> 

[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/> 

 

"Good design is accessible design." 
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/> 


 

 
Received on Monday, 9 August 2004 14:09:42 UTC

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