W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 1999

RE: Technique or Checkpoint

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 09:59:30 -0500 (EST)
To: Denis Anson <danson@miseri.edu>
cc: WAI UA group <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.04.9902120956510.16137-100000@tux.w3.org>
Exactly.

(Cross-posted to PAGL. PAGL folks, I think that a technique or perhaps
checkpoint which says 'include 'alternate content stuff in image where the
format supports it' Priority 2 if a checkpoint, since getting the info is
not that easy at the moment, and the image is likely not to be downloaded
at all by plenty of user agents. )

Charles McCN

On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, Denis Anson wrote:

  So, the issue for the UA working group would be to treat such information
  the same as titles on HTML markup, or alt text, and display that information
  to the user.
  
  That would work for me.  The authoring guidelines would suggest including
  such text information in the image, and the UA guideline would suggest that,
  "When descriptive text is included in an image, that descriptive text should
  be available to the user."  This would be equivalent to the Alt Text
  requirement, except that it is actually part of the image.
  
  -----Original Message-----
  From: w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org]On Behalf
  Of Charles McCathieNevile
  Sent: Friday, February 12, 1999 9:13 AM
  To: Denis Anson
  Cc: WAI UA group
  Subject: RE: Technique or Checkpoint
  
  The relevance of the proposal to UA was a request to provide extra
  information which can be stored in various formats.
  
  As I understand it, GIF, PNG, WebCGM, JPEG, and some other formats allow
  textual information to be included in an image. My only experience of this
  is GIF, where the information is commonly used to control animations, but
  it is also possible to add titles, etc. Where those things are present in
  the image (or where the UA supports a given format) that information
  should be made available to the user.
  
  Collecting the information is the bit that is relevant to Authoring Tools
  but not to user agents.
  
  Charles McCathieNevile
  
  On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, Denis Anson wrote:
  
    I would argue that it is almost a checkpoint.  Checkpoints should be in
  the
    approximate form of "provide this functionality."  It should be obvious
  from
    the checkpoint what abilities the checkpoint provides.  Hence, this isn't
    quite there yet.  It is an arbitrary statement that you should "do this,"
    without any explanation of why or to what extent.  It also doesn't define
    what a "professionally written" description is: what profession?  How
    detailed should the description be?
  
    The statement might be rephrased along the lines of: Provide a text-based
    means for the end user to determine the content of multimedia files (e.g.
    clip art).
  
    This phrasing would state the intent of the checkpoint, and be based on
    functionality.  The technique associated with this checkpoint might be
    something like "Provide grammatically correct and descriptively accurate
    text documents and/or meaningful filenames that describe multimedia files.
  
    Now, on the other hand, is this the responsibility of the user agent?  Do
    user *agents*  include clip art and other multimedia files, or do they
  just
    render them? It seems pointless to require an agent to generate a
    description of files that come from elsewhere.
  
    Denis Anson, MS, OTR
    Assistant Professor
    Computer Access Specialist
    College Misericordia
    301 Lake Street
    Dallas, PA 18612
  
    RESNA
    The International Organization of Assistive Technology Professionals
  
    Member since 1989
  
  
  
    -----Original Message-----
    From: w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org]On
    Behalf Of Charles McCathieNevile
    Sent: Thursday, February 11, 1999 4:47 PM
    To: Kynn Bartlett
    Cc: WAI AU Guidelines; WAI UA group
    Subject: Re: Technique or Checkpoint
  
  
    Actually, it sounds like a checkpoint to me - a thing which Authoring
    Tools "should" do to significantly increase the accessibility of the end
    product. It is certainly not a priority 1. Techniques for this include
    supporting the use of standards which allow information to be encoded with
    it (such as GIF), as well as asking User Agent Guidelines to consider
    providing access to that information.
  
    Charles McCN
  
    On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
  
      At 03:52 p.m. 02/11/99 -0500, Jutta Treviranus wrote:
      >Should the point about "Including professionally written descriptions
  for
      >all multimedia files (e.g., clip art) packaged with the software"
      >be a checkpoint and therefore something that must or should be done or
      >should it be a technique and therefore a suggested way of fulfilling
  the
      >guideline 2.6?
  
      This sounds like a technique to me.
  
      The principle is:
  
          "Make it easy for users to supply alternative text."
  
      The technique is:
  
          "...by including default descriptions for things you give them."
  
      Anyone have suggested working for the checkpoint, though?
  
      --
      Kynn Bartlett  <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
  http://www.kynn.com/
      Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet
  http://www.idyllmtn.com/
      Six Principles of Accessible Web Design:
  http://www.kynn.com/+six
      Spring 1999 Virtual Dog Show!
  http://www.dogshow.com/
      Enroll now for my web accessibility course
  http://www.kynn.com/+access
  
  
    --Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
    phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://purl.oclc.org/net/charles
    W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
    MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA
  
  
  --Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
  phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://purl.oclc.org/net/charles
  W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
  MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA
  

--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://purl.oclc.org/net/charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA
Received on Friday, 12 February 1999 09:59:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:22 UTC