- From: David MacDonald <befree@magma.ca>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 19:18:52 -0400
- To: "'Li, Alex'" <alex.li@sap.com>, "'Ben Caldwell'" <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>, "'Gregg Vanderheiden'" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Cc: <public-wcag-teama@w3.org>
I think that brings us back to the issue I brought up at the face to face. The term "label" is a very charged word because it is an HTML element and that is not what we are talking about in the guidelines. The term label occurs 5 or 6 times in the guidelines and it never means what HTML coders would think of it. Perhaps the word "descriptive text" or some other non-HTML word would be better. Cheers David .Access empowers people .barriers disable them. www.eramp.com -----Original Message----- From: Li, Alex [mailto:alex.li@sap.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 6:09 PM To: David MacDonald; Ben Caldwell; Gregg Vanderheiden Cc: public-wcag-teama@w3.org Subject: RE: FW: combining 3.2 L3 SC1 and L2 SC3 Not sure how to word it, but make sure people don't try to put label on non-text content AND use text alternatives. We are only asking to do one not two labels. -A -----Original Message----- From: David MacDonald [mailto:befree@magma.ca] Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 3:01 PM To: Li, Alex; 'Ben Caldwell'; 'Gregg Vanderheiden' Cc: public-wcag-teama@w3.org Subject: 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 23:19:17 UTC