W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-silver@w3.org > October 2019

RE: About SC 1.1.1 in the Migration Map

From: Bruce Bailey <Bailey@Access-Board.gov>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 12:54:58 +0000
To: Makoto Ueki <makoto.ueki@gmail.com>, 'Jennifer Chadwick' <jcha@siteimprove.com>, "Cybele S (via Google Sheets)" <cybele.sack@gmail.com>
CC: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>, Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de>
Message-ID: <MN2PR22MB1776807D5C426FE1A929A88BE36D0@MN2PR22MB1776.namprd22.prod.outlook.com>
I agree with Detlev and Makoto about separating SC 2.5.3 from 1.1.1.

My understanding of the rational for merging 1.4.5 into 1.1.1, is that 1.1.1 contains a few instances that dictate what the text alternative must be (e.g., null alt, alt==name) but not a complete list.  Having the alt attribute value be the words from an image of text is something that could have been explicitly included in 1.1.1.

This gets at what I was trying to say on the call yesterday, that 1.1.1 divides its use cases into "textual equivalent" and "descriptive identification".  I think the Silver version of 1.1.1 might group null alt, alt==name, and alt==words-from-an-image-of-text all as examples of textual equivalents.

-- 
Top posted for my convenience.


-----Original Message-----
From: Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de> 
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2019 1:59 AM
To: Makoto Ueki <makoto.ueki@gmail.com>
Cc: Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>
Subject: Re: About SC 1.1.1 in the Migration Map

I think 2.5.3 Label in Name  covers a very distinct aspect (matching visible label to accName) that should be kept separate from 2.4.6 where the point is to check whether label /heading texts are appropriate / descriptive of content or function - a semantic, not programmatic match. So I would recommend *not* to merge these two.
Detlev

> Am 17.10.2019 um 03:18 schrieb Makoto Ueki <makoto.ueki@gmail.com>:
> 
> Hello everyone,
> 
> Jennifer, Cybele and I are working on SC 1.1.1.
> 
> The migration map merges "SC 1.1.1 Non-text Content" with " SC 1.4.5 Images of Text" and "SC 2.5.3 Label in Name". I think these 3 SC should be separated.
> 
> Because:
> - 1.1.1 is about text alternative and machine readability of non-text content.
> - 1.4.5 is about not using image of text. 1.4.5 can be merged with 1.4.9 rather than 1.1.1.
> - 2.5.3 is about form label so it should be merged with 2.4.6 and/or maybe 1.3.1 rather than 1.1.1.
> 
> Also
> - it might be possible to remove things about form label from 1.1.1 as it can be merged with 1.3.1, 2.4.6 and 2.5.3.
> 
> Having things about form controls in 1.1.1 has made 1.1.1 more complicated.
> 
> So our document don't include SC 1.4.5 and 2.5.3 at this moment. We are focusing on SC 1.1.1. 
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> - Makoto
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2019 12:55:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:24:03 UTC