RE: FW: combining 3.2 L3 SC1 and L2 SC3

Perhaps the addition is not necessary and could be explained in the guide
doc but I would add it in the SC for clarity. 

"...and have consistent text alternatives."

A lot of people will never read the guide doc and I think the extra 5 words
in the SC will be worth the space they take up.

Cheers
David


.Access empowers people
            .barriers disable them.

 www.eramp.com


-----Original Message-----
From: public-wcag-teama-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-wcag-teama-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Li, Alex
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 5:21 PM
To: Ben Caldwell; Gregg Vanderheiden
Cc: public-wcag-teama@w3.org
Subject: RE: FW: combining 3.2 L3 SC1 and L2 SC3


Text alternative is how you label non-text content.  So, the original
should already include text alternative.  We are fine with original sc
if we include techniques. -Alex

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Caldwell [mailto:caldwell@trace.wisc.edu] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 2:10 PM
To: Gregg Vanderheiden
Cc: Li, Alex; public-wcag-teama@w3.org
Subject: Re: FW: combining 3.2 L3 SC1 and L2 SC3

Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>  
> OK 
> Here goes
> 
> Combined form is...
> 
> 3.2 L2 SC3.  Components that have the same functionality in multiple
> delivery units within a set of delivery units are labeled consistently
and
> have consistent text alternatives (if any).
> (Guide to 3.2 L2 SC3)
> 

Looks pretty good. Do we need to include "and have consistent text 
alternatives (if any)."? I'm not sure we need to make any changes to the

SC.

We can clarify in the guide doc that the use of consistent text 
alternatives is how you'd meet this for functional non-text content if 
need be (ex. situation a: text-based components; situation b: non-text 
components).

-Ben

--
Ben Caldwell | <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>
Trace Research and Development Center <http://trace.wisc.edu>

Received on Wednesday, 26 October 2005 22:01:02 UTC