W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 1998

Re: Updated Guidelines

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 May 1998 13:59:24 -0500
Message-Id: <3.0.5.32.19980519135924.00a70510@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: Liam Quinn <liam@htmlhelp.com>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Thank you for your comments.  Ian Jacobs is currently working on editing
the documents and we will get your comments into that draft.

Jon


At 06:31 PM 5/18/98 -0400, Liam Quinn wrote:
>>http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-WAI-UA-BROWSER-0518.htm
>
>Concerning C1:
>
>User agents should offer the option of showing an image's *replacement
>text* as an alternative to showing an image's *description*.  The former
>option is directed towards those who want a page's content while the latter
>is directed towards those who want a visual Web page described to them.
>
>The ALT attribute provides replacement text (not a description) while the
>TITLE attribute gives a title of the image--usually a brief description,
>but not necessarily a tool tip.  I don't see why the NAME attribute (of A?)
>is mentioned since it really has nothing to do with the image.  Is there
>any reason why we shouldn't just use the algorithm given in the HTML 4.0
>Recommendation at
<http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/appendix/notes.html#h-B.9>?
>
>Concerning C2:
>
>If images are turned off, sound (or Java, etc.) may still be desired, so we
>shouldn't require UAs to use the innermost text of the OBJECT element.  UAs
>should use the first supported alternative that is not an image.
>
>The alternative content of the OBJECT is not necessarily a description of
>the image.  The alternative content is by definition a replacement for the
>image, which in many cases does not involve describing the image.  For
>example, the content for an OBJECT that embeds a navigational image map is
>typically a list of links rather than a description of the image map.
>
>If there is no alternative content for the OBJECT element, then we have to
>assume that the author intends for the object to be purely decorative, so
>that the non-graphical user need not be aware of it.  For those users who
>want visual Web pages described to them, UAs can substitute the TITLE of
>the OBJECT.  With empty OBJECTs, the object's filename should not be
>displayed to the user who just wants the content--no OBJECT content means
>that there is no content.
>
>Concerning C3:
>
>The D-link should not be made available if the user only wants the content.
> We need to distinguish between users who want content and users who want a
>visual Web page described to them.  There should be separate user options
>for each.
>
>Concerning E1:
>
>The draft suggests using the ALT attribute as alternative content for the
>APPLET element.  Since APPLET allows a richer alternative as the content of
>the element, UAs should use the content of the APPLET element instead.  If
>the content is empty, UAs should use the ALT attribute (which is redundant
>and shouldn't be used by authors).
>
>-- 
>Liam Quinn
>Web Design Group            Enhanced Designs, Web Site Development
>http://www.htmlhelp.com/    http://enhanced-designs.com/
>
>
Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street
Champaign, IL 61820

Voice: 217-244-5870
Fax: 217-333-0248
E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
WWW:	http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
	http://www.als.uiuc.edu/InfoTechAccess
Received on Tuesday, 19 May 1998 14:57:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:20 UTC