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

Re: Equivalency, Languages, Checkpoint 2.3

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 13:32:36 -0600
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20001101131043.012e6560@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Al,
How about this:
<NEW>
2.3 For elements with author specified equivalents, provide easy access to 
all equivalents through one of the following mechanisms:
(1) allowing configuration to render one the alternatives instead of the 
element;
(2) allowing configuration to render one the alternatives in addition to 
the element;
(3) allowing the user to select the element and then inspect its alternatives;
(4) providing a direct link to the alternatives in content, just before or 
after the element in document order.

[Priority 1]

Note: For example, if an image element in an HTML document has an 
alternative in the form of a text equivalent, provide access to the text
equivalent through at least one of the following mechanisms (1) by 
replacing the image with the rendered text equivalent, (2) by rendering the
text equivalent near the rendered image, (3) by allowing the user to select 
the image and then inspect the text equivalent, or (4) by allowing the user to
follow a link just after the text equivalent.
</NEW>

Response JRG:
At 11:41 AM 11/1/2000 -0500, Al Gilman wrote:
>At 09:33 AM 2000-11-01 -0600, Jon Gunderson wrote:
> >I offer the following proposal based on EH [1] proposal:
> >
>
>AG:: This looks good.  I have some comments and questions, but this wording is
>generally something I could go out and defend to heathens.
>
>-- partial quotes and comments
>
> >2.3 For elements with an author specified equivalents, provide easy access
>
>
>AG:: drop the 'an,' it conflicts in number with 'equivalents.' [just grammar]

JRG: Agreed

> >to the equivalents through one of the following mechanisms:
>
>AG:: possible edit:
>
>to all equivalents through one or more of the following mechanisms:
>
>[rationale point 1: If 'all' vs. 'the' equivalents sends us off into another
>rathole on symmetry, I can live with 'the.'  But 'all' is modestly better in
>getting the message across.]
>
>[rationale point 2: It would probably be best to say "at least one" of the
>following mechanisms, or "one or more" of the following mechanisms, just so
>nobody reads this as "one and only one."  This is a little more wordy and
>pedantic, but it is more precise and reader-proof.]

JRG: Ian and Eric can help here with the final language

> >(1) allowing configuration to render one or more of the alternatives
> >instead of the element;
> >(2) allowing configuration to render one or more of the alternatives in
> >addition to the element;
>
>AG:: In options 1 & 2 I regard the addition of "or more" as better for the
>user.  On the other hand, while small, I would tend to view this as a
>substantive change.  Was the question of 'one' vs. "one or more" discussed in
>any depth in the development of the checkpoint, or is this small difference
>"all the same thing" at the (rough) level of precision of the existing rough
>consensus?

JRG: We could leave it at one, but the other options 3 and 4 already talk 
about access ti more than one.  An option could be to say "one of the 
alternatives " or something like that.



> ><NEW>
> >2.3 For elements with an author specified equivalents, provide easy access
> >to the equivalents through one of the following mechanisms:
> >(1) allowing configuration to render one or more of the alternatives
> >instead of the element;
> >(2) allowing configuration to render one or more of the alternatives in
> >addition to the element;
> >(3) allowing the user to select the element and then inspect its
>alternatives;
> >(4) providing a direct link to the alternatives in content, just before or
> >after the element in document order.
> >[Priority 1]
> >
> >Note: For example, if an image element in an HTML document has an
> >alternative in the form of a text equivalent, provide access to the text
> >equivalent through at least one of the following mechanisms (1) by
> >replacing the image with the rendered text equivalent, (2) by rendering the
> >text equivalent near the rendered image, (3) by allowing the user to select
>the
> >image and then inspect the text equivalent, or (4) by allowing the user to
> >follow a link just after the text equivalent.
> ><NEW>
> >

Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
MC-574
College of Applied Life Studies
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
WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
Received on Wednesday, 1 November 2000 14:32:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:22 GMT