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: <5.2.0.9.2.20040603234350.02046d60@localhost>
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 
content.

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,
--wendy

[1] 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2003Aug/0000.html>
[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
http://www.w3.org/WAI/
/--  
Received on Thursday, 3 June 2004 23:47:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:04 UTC