W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > June 2004

WCAG 2.0 comments: Issue 401

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 23:47:05 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: kynn@kynn.com
Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org

Hello Kynn,

Thank you for your comments on WCAG 2.0 [1].  (you're familiar with the 
opening blurb now... :)

Issue 401 [2]

Kynn Bartlett writes:

Kynn Bartlett writes:
I tried mentally diagramming the sentence that comprises checkpoint 1.1 and 
it wasn't easy. I think this checkpoint has been overworked and needs to be 
stated simply and clearly. Note that this particular way of phrasing the 
checkpoint text makes it really impersonal. Compare to:

If you use content which is not simply textual, include a text equivalent 
for the parts of that non-text content which can be expressed in words. The 
text equivalent should convey the same function or meaning as the non-text 

This is an extreme example -- from one style ("W3C clinical" to "Kynn 
chatty") -- but it is meant to illustrate how a checkpoint can be rewritten 
to be understandable.


Guideline 1.1 has been significantly rewritten. It's not "Kynn chatty" and 
still fairly "W3C clinical" but is it easier to mentally diagram? Does this 
close the issue?

Thank you,

[2] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=401>
[3] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-20040311/#text-equiv>

-- wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
Received on Thursday, 3 June 2004 23:47:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:14:36 UTC