Re: Request to Reconsider Alt Guidance Location

Hi ben,

> Not sure what the TF thought they were voting for, but this implies to
> me there may be new normative requirements.

none of the statements you have cited , from my reading, imply that
new normative requirements are to be minted and if they were it would
require an update to Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0
recomendation. Any suggestions you have on how to modify the CP text
to make that clearer would be appreciated.

The last point in the details section says:
"Remove normative aspects of the techniques document. "

and it is quite clear and well known  that WCAG techniques are not normative.

the normative requirements for non text objets are in
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#text-equiv

technolgy specific methods to meet the requirements are in
http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20120103/Overview.html

regards
stevef

On 26 February 2012 09:23, Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
<bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Steve Faulkner
> <faulkner.steve@gmail.com> wrote:
>> you wrote:
>> "The CP claims normative requirements will be created by updating the
>> Techniques, but the Techniques are not normative, so the CP does not
>> make sense."
>>
>> can you provide details of where it says this in the CP?
>
> It says:
>
> "The majority of normative authoring requirements for alternative text
> currently contained within the HTML5 specification are not
> HTML5-specific, but are also useful and relevant for authoring content
> in other specifications besides HTML5. They should therefore not be
> prescribed within HTML5."
>
> "Much of the normative requirements for alternative text currently in
> "HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives" are
> relevant for authoring content in other specifications."
>
> "Requirements and guidance needs to be assigned to normative or
> informative levels, according to extensive experience regarding which
> guidance is more fundamental and/or more well-tested, and which is
> more advisory or even experimental."
>
> Not sure what the TF thought they were voting for, but this implies to
> me there may be new normative requirements.
>
> This would be consistent with attempts by TF members to introduce new
> normative requirements, for example introducing a 50 word limit to
> <figcaption> elements providing text alternatives for <img> elements:
>
>    https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13651
>
> --
> Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis



-- 
with regards

Steve Faulkner
Technical Director - TPG

www.paciellogroup.com | www.HTML5accessibility.com |
www.twitter.com/stevefaulkner
HTML5: Techniques for providing useful text alternatives -
dev.w3.org/html5/alt-techniques/
Web Accessibility Toolbar - www.paciellogroup.com/resources/wat-ie-about.html

Received on Sunday, 26 February 2012 09:45:04 UTC