- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 19:09:47 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- cc: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
my comments interspersed - look for IJ and CMN
On Sat, 19 Jun 1999, Ian Jacobs wrote:
Reference document:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/WAI-AUTOOLS-19990617
3) Guideline 2.4: In intro text, rather than say
that text equivalents are "absolutely necessary", just
explain why they are important: they may be rendered
as speech, braille, and visually. Change the second
sentence to read something like "Since producing
text equivalents can be a time-consuming task..." and
then merge with the second paragraph. For example:
"Textual equivalents, including "alt-text", long
descriptions, video captions, and transcripts make
multimedia content accessible since text may be
rendered as speech, braille, and visually. [Add
more rationale here if desired, stealing from
WCAG.] Since producing text equivalents can be a
time-consuming task, authoring tools should
assist the author with mechanical tasks (such as?)
and help the author ensure that text equivalents
accurately convey the functionality of
the related multimedia object.
4) Drop "This will lead to an increase in the
average quality of descriptions used." I don't think
this prediction is necessary, in particular because
just before it there are four good reasons to include
pre-written descriptions. What does "average quality"
mean?
And On Mon, 21 Jun 1999, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
I agree with your principles here. I will leave it for this draft,
because I think the point raised by WIlliam that it might be worthwhile
discussing the use of non-text alternatives is also valid, and I think we
should wait at least to see what the WCAG group comes up with on those lines
this thursday.
CMN
I propose that we make the changes as proposed, in the next working draft.
Received on Thursday, 24 June 1999 19:09:49 UTC