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

Re: Conformance Level Clarification

From: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 09:26:02 -0500
Message-ID: <236101c5136a$471a8a70$e29a968e@WILDDOG>
To: <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
Cc: "John M Slatin" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, "WAI WCAG List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

>  > Level 1 alt text would only be required to meet the level 1
>  > while level 2 alt text would be required to meet both level 1 and level
>  > requirements.
> The same as all other success criteria.
Currently, each success criteria does *not* have 3 levels of conformance. To
conform to a success criteria the author must meet the success criteria.
There's no room for going below or above what's defined in the SC - there's
no levels at the technology specific layer. I'm suggesting that we allow for
3 levels per success criteria.

> It might be argued that in dealing with complicated images, a short
> label should be provided in the ALT attribute and full detail in a
> document referred to by LONGDESC, but that's an HTML-specific
> constraint that can't be expressed in the WCAG success criteria, which
> have to apply across languages and formats.
I think there's consensus that a short description is provided by the ALT
attribute and the LONGDESC is used for a longer description. Yes, this is
HTML specific and should not be expressed in the general success criteria.
It goes in the technology specific layer.

> For example, how would you
> apply it to the SVG DESC element?
I'm not sure. The people that are working on the SVG technology layer would
have to make that determination.

> I would have thought that the definition of "text
> alternative" would exclude place-holder values at level 1. A
> place-holder value doesn't provide the same functionality or
> information as the non-text content.
Perhaps you're right. I could agree but I feel there is pressure to move
this sort of conformance test (placeholder text) up to level 2 so that's why
I suggested it there. This is why we need the 3 levels to work with.
Currently a conformance test is either in or out unless we resort to other
categories such as "optional" or "best practice". If we've got the 3 levels
then we can keep the test but move it around to the appropriate level and
there's no need for defining other categories.

Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2005 14:26:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:59:35 UTC