Re: Checkpoint 2.1

Madeleine Rothberg wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> I have a concern about the note following Checkpoint 2.1
> (Taken from the 20 December working draft):

Hi Madeleine,

I propose that we remove the Note and push it to the Techniques
as follows:

<quote>
       Some users benefit from simultaneous access to primary
       and alternative content. For instance, users with low 
       vision may want to view images (even imperfectly)
       but require a text equivalent for the image; 
      the text may be rendered with a large font or as speech.
</quote>

My concern with the same note is that it talks about requirements
without really making any. Since it's advisory only, I think it's
better in the techniques.

 -Ian

 
> 2.1 Ensure that the user has access to all content, including
> alternative equivalents for content. [Priority 1]
> Note. Although it is not a requirement that alternative equivalents be available
> at the same time as primary content, some users may benefit from simultaneous
> access. For instance, users with low vision may want to view images (even
> imperfectly) but require a text equivalent for the image; the text may be
> rendered with a large font or as speech.
> 
> I have been assuming that this checkpoint is the umbrella requiring UAs
> to provide access to multimedia alternative equivalents and that the
> later checkpoint 2.6 that requires synchronizing captions or auditory
> description is a special case of this. Since the note on 2.1 explicitly
> says that it is not a requirement to render at the same time, but 2.6
> says that some tracks must be rendered synchronously, perhaps the note
> for 2.1 should say it is not a requirement for all alternative equivalents
> to be available at the same time as primary content, but see Checkpoint 2.6
> for cases where that is required.
> 
> -Madeleine

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783