W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2006

RE: WCAG 1.0 or 2.0?

From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 02:04:47 -0500
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFFDC91DEC.1F9F178C-ON8625720D.002593D5-8625720D.0026D19C@us.ibm.com>
>> An image of a planned escape route out of a
>> building in case of a fire that has an alt attribute of "a picture"
>> would surely be bordering on negligent if not criminally
>> irresponsible. 
>> 
>
>This is where "compliance" and usability part company.  But of course, 
you
>*are* correct, it would be criminal, yet the way things are currently 
worded
>(especially Section 508, which is a Standard, as opposed to WCAG which is 
a
>guideline), "a picture" would satisfy the requirement.

Hmm, that's not my opinion.  When I read 508:


 1194.22 Web-based intranet and internet information and applications.
(a) A text equivalent for every non-text element shall be provided (e.g., 
via "alt", "longdesc", or in element content). 

I focus on the term "equivalent".  The alt text of "a picture" does not 
satisfy, even a weak definition of "equivalent",  So it's not only non 
compliant, it is criminal.

by the way, the wording is almost identical to WCAG 1.0

1.1 Provide a text equivalent for every non-text element (e.g., via "alt", 
"longdesc", or in element content). 

and gratefully WCAG 2.0 has normatively defined some terms so at least 
there is a documented definition:

alternate version  
version that provides all of the same information and functionality and is 
as up to date as any non-conformant content

Regards,
Phill Jenkins
IBM Worldwide Accessibility Center
http://www.ibm.com/able
Received on Friday, 20 October 2006 07:05:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:31 UTC