W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2005

Re: [techs] Alt Text Tests 192 and 195

From: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:29:04 -0500
Message-ID: <009d01c50231$d1d0eaf0$e29a968e@WILDDOG>
To: "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>, "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "'WAI WCAG List'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Ooops, left off the references in previous message. Here they are followed
by original message.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JanMar/0095.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#meaning

Chris


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
To: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>; "'WAI WCAG List'"
<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 11:07 AM
Subject: Re: [techs] Alt Text Tests 192 and 195


>
> > Currently we don't have any SC to tie these to.   So I don't think we
can
> > require them unless we add new SC to levels 2 or 3.
> >
> There was a suggestion a while back (Sept. 2, 2003) to create a guideline
or
> success criteria that addressed exactly this sort of thing. Recently,
Wendy
> proposed [1] to drop this suggestion because it was covered by guideline
> 1.1, level 1, SC 4. I've mapped these tests to this success criteria for
> now.
>
> Success criteria 4 in guideline 1.1 specifically refers to "non text
> content" and these tests deal with text so I think my mapping to that SC
may
> be incorrect. Perhaps a more accurate mapping would be to guideline 3.1,
> level 3, SC 2 or 3. [2].
>
> > Do these really affect accessibility - or just reduce chattiness and
> > annoying repetition?
> >
> I interpret the guidelines to mean that chattiness and annoying repetition
> are accessibility problems. For example, guideline 1.1, level 1, SC4
> specifically addresses this by stating you must mark some things so they
can
> be ignored. We've also discussed this issue in regard to text in images
used
> as buttons. Some text in the image should (must) be ignored because it is
> "decorative" or "incidental" or "not relevant". I think there's general
> agreement that accessibility improves when some content is excluded. But
> where do we draw the line?
>
> Test 195 "don't use source anchors starting with 'link to' or 'go to'"
> addresses the issue of reducing chattiness and annoying repetition. Most
> authors are not going to object to this - it means they actually have to
> write less. It's a simple rule that can be easily applied and tested for
> compliance. This issue will also come up when we discuss tests for link
text
> so we should try to get a good decision now.
>
> Test 192 "don't label your submit buttons as 'submit'" may upset some
> authors. It's a common practice to label form submit buttons as "submit"
and
> getting people to change is always difficult. The issue here though is not
> just annoying repetition but meaning. The button has much more meaning if
it
> says something about the form and that will benefit a larger audience.
This
> is a simple rule that can be easily tested for and will improve
> accessibility but the burden on authors will be greater.
>
> > These seem like good ideas - but I am afraid to put every good idea
> > in as an SC or our guidelines will get very long.
> >
> It's a difficult task trying to get the guidelines right but I hope these
> detailed questions have helped rather than hinder the process.
>
> If the tests are a good idea and should be covered by the guidelines then
I
> suggest we could:
>
> 1) broaden guideline 1.1, L2, SC4 so text as well as non-text should be
> ignored, or
> 2) add another SC as suggested earlier [1], or
> 3) map them to guideline 3.1, L3, SC2 or 3
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
>
Received on Monday, 24 January 2005 16:29:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:35 GMT