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

Notes from discussion about programmatic object, non-text content

From: Wendy Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:55:20 -0400
Message-ID: <415C64A8.4090605@w3.org>
To: wai-gl <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Cc: Gez Lemon <gl@juicystudio.com>, Ben Caldwell <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>, Michael Cooper <michaelc@watchfire.com>

Yesterday, Gez, Ben, Michael and I brainstormed about definitions for 
programmatic object and non-text content per our action item from the 16 
Septemeber telecon [1]. Notes are at [2].

We kept coming back to issues of support and implementation in 
browsers.  We thought about the different types of media that are 
implied by non-text content and wondered if we could explicitly use a 
list and replace the term "non-text content."  Scripts fit the 
definition of programmatic object (sequence, selection, and iteration) 
but have separate requirements because of user agent support issues as 
well as their interpretation by integral user agent components.  Media 
types we discussed: structured text, static images, multimedia, 
audio-only, video-only, dynamic interactions (programmatic objects), 
data (xml-based, ala text/xml that could end up either in structured 
text or an image if converted to svg).

wrt svg, at the moment, svg is not widely supported, and therefore needs 
text equivalent - not because the text is not there but because of lack 
of support. Again, technology support effects which techniques to choose 
and in some sense which guidelines are applicable or how to write the 

We wondered if we could throw baseline over the wall to policy. Perhaps, 
say "declare baseline" then give info about reasonable baseline given 
today's technology.

Thinking specifically about javascript, we wanted to list all current 
inaccessible techniques that do not degrade if scripting is not 
available. We listed: dynamic menus, inserting content, and applications 
(e.g., calculator).  Client-side validation doesn't degrade well to 
server validation not because of accessibility issues but because of 
security and cost issues.

Our conclusion is that the baseline discussion needs resolution before 
we can resolve these issues.

Ben, Michael, and Gez - feel free to make corrections or additions.


[1]  <http://w3.org/2004/09/16-wai-wcag-irc.html#T21-12-37>
[2]  <http://w3.org/2004/09/29-wai-wcag-irc.html#T21-06-36>

wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
Received on Thursday, 30 September 2004 19:55:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:51 UTC