Current wording: For all non-text content that is functional, such as graphical links or buttons, text alternatives serve the same purpose as the non-text content.
Proposal 1: For all non-text content that is functional, text alternatives serve the same purpose as the non-text content.
Rationale: Delete the phrase ", such as graphical links or buttons." as suggested in Issue 1486. This definition of non-text content excludes applets and widgets. This means that functional non-text content is capable of performing a single action, unlike applets and widgets which may be capable of performing more than one function and for which a text alternative is unable to serve the same purpose. A text alternative for an applet can only identify the function. An alternative mechanism should be covered by a combination of Guideline 4.2 and baseline.
Assumes the following definitions:
Proposal 2: For all non-text content that is functional, text alternatives identify or serve the same purpose as non-text content.
Summary: Add the word "identify" and keep as a single success criterion.
Rationale: If the non-text content is an applet (per the definition in proposal 1), the text alternative does not serve the same purpose as the applet, the text alternative can only identify the purpose of the applet. Also, baseline will effect which techniques are appropriate. If java is included in the baseline, it is sufficient to identify the purpose of the applet via a text alternative (e.g., <applet alt="organize photos" ... />. If java is not in the baseline, then a fallback/alternative mechanism that provides the same functionality as the applet is required (e.g., an html:form-based interface to organize photos). It seems that either Guideline 4.2 or conformance/baseline will cover fallbacks.
Assumes the following definition
Proposal 3a: For all non-text content that provides a single function, text alternatives serve the same purpose as the non-text content.
Proposal 3b: For all non-text content that provides more than a single function, text alternatives identify the purpose of the non-text content.
Rationale: In an attempt to keep a simple definition for non-text content so as not to effect other success criteria, what if we handle the two types of functional non-text content separately? It seems that if non-text content is an "organize photos" applet that offers a variety of functions (find existing photos by date, find existing photos by metadata/tags, create a new set, add photos to a set, etc.) then a text alternative will not "serve the same purpose" as the applet; a text alternative can only identify it. However, if the non-text content has a single function such as an image used as a link (e.g., <a href="search.html"><img src="search.gif" alt="search"></a>) then the text alternative can serve the same purpose as the non-text content.
Assumes the following definitions as well as applet (from proposal 1).
Current wording: For all non-text content that is used to convey information, text alternatives convey the same information. [I]
Note:
for multimedia, this means that two alternatives are provided:
Proposed wording: For all non-text content that is used to convey information, text alternatives convey the same information. [I] Note:For multimedia, this means that at a minimum, a text alternative identifies the purpose or function of the multimedia. If the multimedia is prerecorded, and contains speech, then a transcript is also provided.
Rationale: Issues raised at the telecon about transcript being required at level 1. However, what about people who are deaf and blind? Didn't we decide that the only method to make content accessible is with a transcript? Should the transcript requirement be moved to Level 2?
Current wording: 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. [I]
Status: No proposed wording. At the 28 April telecon, Gregg raised an issue with the testability of "describe." Any suggestions?
Current wording: Non-text content that does not provide information, functionality, or sensory experience is marked such that it can be ignored by assistive technology.
Proposed wording: Non-text content that is not functional, is not used to convey information, and does not create a specific sensory experience is implemented such that it can be ignored by assistive technology.
Rationale: Editorial: replaced "provide information" with "convey information" and added "create a specific" to "sensory experience" for consistency and reordered to follow the order of SC 1-3 above. Issue 1487 - replaced "marked" with "implemented
Current wording: Any text alternatives are explicitly associated with the non-text content. [I]
No change to success criterion. Only add definition for "explicitly associated."
Current definition: none.
Rationale: Issue 1075 -- Clarify what "explicitly associated" means.
At a minimum, a text alternative that serves the same purpose as or identifies the non-text content must be provided and must be programmatically determined. Additional text alternatives that convey the same information or describe the non-text content may either be programmatically determined or easy to find either because:
Rationale: Instead of defining explicitly associated I tried to say, "at a minimum, there must be a text alternative that is programmatically associated with the non-text content. If you need to provide additional descriptions or information, those text alternatives don't need to be programmatically determined, but they do need to be easy to find."
Remove the success criterion and include the idea of "explicitly associated" as part of the definition for "text alternative" (as follows).
Rationale: The current success criterion applies to all instances of text alternatives, therefore it seems to be part of the definition of text alternative and not a separate success criterion.
Current wording: For live audio-only or live video-only content, such as internet radio or Web cameras, text alternatives describe the purpose of the presentation or a link is provided to alternative real-time content, such as traffic reports for a traffic Web camera
Note: real-time content does not imply real-time captions.
Editorial Note: This is similar to #1 above, yet it seems we need to specifically address audio-only and video-only content to avoid confusion.
Proposed wording: Same, but remove the editorial note.
Rationale: Issue 1439 - delete editorial note, "Editorial Note: This is similar to #1 above, yet it seems we need to specifically address audio-only and video-only content to avoid confusion.
This has the same issue as L1SC3 above (use of the word describe).
Current wording: For multimedia content, a combined transcript of audio descriptions of video and captions is provided. [I]
Proposed wording: For prerecorded multimedia content, a combined transcript of audio descriptions of video and captions is available.
Rationale: Issue 1488 - replaced "provided" with "available." Also, added "prerecorded" to sync with distinctions in Guideline 1.2 between prerecorded and real-time multimedia.
Current definition: Graphic representations that are created by a spatial arrangement of text characters. Although it can be rendered on a text display, it is not text.
Rationale: Discussed at the 28 April 2005 telecon and decided to base the definition on Wikipedia's definition of ASCII art.
Previously proposed definition: Information that forms Web sites and Web applications: the code and markup that define the structure, presentation, and interaction, as well as text, images, and sounds that convey information to the end-user. In this specification, the noun "content" is used in three ways:
Current definition: none.
Rationale: Currently, we use the term "content" to mean a variety of things. In some cases we specifically say perceivable unit or delivery unit. I think content should be synonyms with perceivable unit and when we want to refer to the delivery unit, we call it out specifically, as in, "Delivery units have descriptive titles." In this instance, the delivery unit must have the information so that when the perceivable unit is generated, it will have a descriptive title. Most often, we are talking about the end-result, i.e., the perceivable unit, i.e., the characteristics of the content that the user agent renders and the user interacts with. However, there are instances where we talk about what must ship in the delivery unit (e.g., text alternatives).
Looking through the 1 June 2005 draft here are some examples.
However, to make the document more readable, I don't think we want to replace "content" with "perceivable unit." But, we need to clarify the usage in the definition.
Previously adopted definition: A sequence of characters. Characters are those included in the Unicode / ISO/IEC 106464 repertoire. Refer to Characters (in Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.1) for more information about the accepted character range.
Current definition: none
Rationale: The definition that was adopted at the 28 April 2005 telecon referenced XML 1.1. Mailing list discussion raised concerns about backwards compatibility of XML 1.1. Therefore, removed the reference to XML 1.1.
text and text alternative were adopted at the 28 April 2005 telecon, but due to other possible changes, updated proposals were made for those definitions.