W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2008

RE: Proposed reorganisation of media accessibility

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bailey@Access-Board.gov>
Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 12:30:39 -0500
Message-ID: <23EB0B5A59FF804E9A219B2C4EF3AE3DE57E90@Access-Exch.Access-Board.gov>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sorry for missing this item on the survey.  This may be a larger issue
than can be captured there anyway.
 
I am looking for group consensus on what is sufficient text equivalents
to be provided with a particular usage case, and images that could
reasonably be expected to be included with medical records comes to
mind.
 
My opinion is that it should be sufficient for EKGs, x-rays, etc. to
have "descriptive identification of the non-text content".  These are
images that convey a great deal of meaningful and significant
information (so I agree that the "specific sensory experience"
definition is not applicable) but will convey information based mostly
on the skilled expertise of the medical professional looking at the EKG
or x-ray.
 
>From your clarification below, I do not think WCAG 2.0 supports such an
interpretation.  You use the term "long description" but of course that
is not defined (per WCAG 2.0), all we have is "a text alternative that
presents equivalent information".  We have lots of experience writing
these kinds of text alternatives, and plenty of live examples of this
being done for maps and illustrations and other works of art.  It is
perfectly reasonable to expect this kind of attention to detail for text
books and other settings.
 
It is totally infeasible to expect that level of detail for a usage case
like medical records containing images.  Can this be resolved?
 


________________________________

From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 9:55 AM
To: Bailey, Bruce; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Proposed reorganisation of media accessibility [ related to
issue 2393]



Hi Bruce,

 

It is on the survey.  I think it is the last item.   Might not have been
there when you looked.  Or - (Because it is associated with an issue)
you might not have recognized it.    

 

RE Your questions:

 

"specific sensory experience is defined as 

specific sensory experience

a sensory experience that is not purely decorative and does not
primarily convey important information or perform a function

  Like a melody or pure art.   Think pleasure (or pain or some emotion).


 

An xray  or sonogram are information......visual information, but
information.... Important information.     They would need long
descriptions. 

 

Test results would also need to be presented in text to the best ability
according to the guidelines as written.   

 

There is always difficulty in presenting some graphic information in
text.  For example a picture of a crime scene.   There could be clues in
the position of anything relative to something else.    

 

Live video-only is not covered in the  guidelines.   There are no
requirements for that in WCAG 2.0.    


Gregg
 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 

 
Received on Wednesday, 5 March 2008 17:30:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:52 GMT