W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > July to September 2000

Re: Checkpoints 7.5, 2.5, 2.6, 1.5, 3.8 (Suggestion 3)

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 19:07:28 -0400
Message-ID: <39AAF0B0.7D99D620@w3.org>
To: "Hansen, Eric" <ehansen@ets.org>
CC: "'w3c-wai-ua@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
"Hansen, Eric" wrote:
> 
> To: UA List
> From: Eric Hansen
> Re: Checkpoints 7.5, 2.5, 2.6, 1.5, 3.8
> 
> This memo concerns Ian's memo [2] (Re: Proposal for 7.5 [Was Re: Issue with
> checkpoint 7.5 (search) and serial...) and relates to other memos.
> 
> ====
> 
> Suggestion 3: Clarify the meanings of checkpoints 2.5 and 2.6.
> 
> It looks like in checkpoints 2.5 and 2.6 when we refer to "non-text content"
> we mean "non-text elements", i.e., content that would require text
> equivalents per WCAG checkpoint 1.1. Please correct me if I am wrong in this
> assumption. I am thinking that since we use the term "recognized" in front
> of "text equivalent", one should also put "recognized" in front of "non-text
> content" because there are lots of cases in which the system might not
> recognize non-text content (elements). Current markup specs do not allow
> identification of all non-text elements.
> 
> Old:
> 
> "2.5 For non-text content that has no recognized text equivalent, allow
> configuration to generate repair text. If the non-text content is included
> by URI reference, base the repair text on the URI reference and content type
> of the Web resource. Otherwise, base the repair text on the name of the
> element including the non-text content. [Priority 2]
> Note: Some markup languages (such as HTML 4 [HTML4] and SMIL 1.0 [SMIL]
> require the author to provide text equivalents for some content. When they
> don't, the user agent is required to repair the invalid content by
> generating a text equivalent. Refer also to checkpoint 2.6.
> Techniques for checkpoint 2.5
> "2.6 When the author has specified an empty text equivalent for non-text
> content, do not generate one. [Priority 3]
> Note: Authors may provide an empty text equivalent (e.g., alt="") when one
> is required by specification, but the non-text content has no other function
> than pure decoration. Please refer to the Web Content Accessibility
> Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10] for more details. Refer also to checkpoint 2.5.
> Techniques for checkpoint 2.6"
> 
> New: No change suggested if my assumption about "non-text content" is
> correct.

I think that I agree with Eric's assessment about the
relationship between 2.5/2.6 and WCAG 1.1. I am not sure about adding
"recognized" in front of "non-text content" since we would end up
saying "recognized video" or "recognized captions" everywhere. This, to
me, is still an editorial issue: include "recognized" in every
checkpoint,
or factor it out? I am favorable to stating once in the applicability
section (which means we could/should remove "recognize" from each
checkpoint's
text).

 - Ian

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Monday, 28 August 2000 19:07:30 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:14 GMT