- From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
- Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:06:13 -0500
- To: "Andi Snow-Weaver" <andisnow@us.ibm.com>, <public-wcag-teamc@w3.org>
Re: LC 739 The proposed comment makes sense for the most part. But it justifies requiring only a "descriptive label" for, e.g., musical performances by saying that it isn't really possible to provide a "text 'equivalent.'" WCAG 2 doesn't use the term "text equivalent" for precisely that rason. I accept the current wording of the SC, but I actually believe that it *would* be possible to provide a meaningful text description of a musical performance or painting, etc. Musicologists and art historians do it all the time, for example. But I was never able to come up with a reasonable test for the "long description." At any rate, I would suggest replacing the sentence about the impossibility of providing a "text 'equivalent'" with something about the difficulty/impossibility of testing for an adequate long description. Otherwise we're using 1.0 language to talk about 2.0 and I don't think that works, even though the original comment talks about backing off from what 1.0 requires. John "Good design is accessible design" John Slatin, Director Accessibility Institute University of Texas at Austin 1 University station Stop G9600 Austin, TX 78712, USA Phone +1.512.495.4288 Fax +1.512.495.4524 cell +1.512.784.7533 email jslatin@austin.utexas.edu www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/ -----Original Message----- From: public-wcag-teamc-request@w3.org [mailto:public-wcag-teamc-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Andi Snow-Weaver Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 2:44 PM To: public-wcag-teamc@w3.org Subject: Please review proposals for issues 655 and 739 Please review proposals for issues 655 [1] and 739 [2]. [1] http://w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=65 5 [2] http://w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=73 9 Andi
Received on Monday, 16 October 2006 20:08:01 UTC