- 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