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

RE: test24 Text equivalents for APPLETs must be updated if APPLET changes

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:34:11 +1100
Message-ID: <16906.40435.155110.155461@jdc.local>
To: "John M Slatin" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Cc: <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>, "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>, "Ken Kipnes" <ken.kipnes@oracle.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

John M Slatin writes:
 > Ben Caldwell wrote:
 > <blockquote>
 > I think we should consider modifying our definition of non-text content 
 > to include scripts and other programmatic objects as *functional* 
 > non-text content.
 > That way, guideline 1.1, level 1, success criterion 1 would require a 
 > text alternative that describes the purpose of function of programmatic 
 > objects and guideline 4.2 would address the need to either make that 
 > programmatic content directly accessible to provide an accessible 
 > alternative.
 > </blockquote>
 > I'm not sure it's a good idea to define scripts, applets, etc., as
 > non-text content.

I agree with John. Here's the problem: if an applet is accessible via
an API supported by my user agent, I won't need any "text
alternative", as the API satisfies my needs by allowing me to interact
with the user interface of the applet. For images and audio, however,
a text alternative is necessary.

I propose that applet should not be considered as "non-text content".
The API requirements should be specified in 4.2 or, as John
astutely suggested, a new success criterion under 1.3. There is also a
requirement that if content can't be made accessible at all, (i.e.,
can't otherwise satisfy the guidelines), a more accessible alternative
should be offered. This is where text alternatives to applets can come
in as a last resort option where the API's aren't available or
Received on Wednesday, 9 February 2005 23:35:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:52 UTC