- From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 16:36:53 -0400
- To: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Hello all, Here are some ideas for subtext: NOTE: I am still working on 3.2. Any ideas? 3.1 Prompt the author to provide equivalent alternative information (e.g., captions, auditory descriptions, and collated text transcripts for video). [Relative Priority] This checkpoint requires authoring tools to ask for (and support the creation of) alternate text, captions, auditory descriptions, collated text transcripts for video, etc. at times appropriate to the author-tool interaction. At minimum, when any applicable non-text objects (see WCAG) are inserted by the tool, a means for adding the alternative information should be provided. More advanced implementations might provide special authoring facilities that automate some of the process of generating alternative information (ex. voice recognition to produce collated text transcripts). Note that although this checkpoint has a relative priority, some checkpoints in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10] may not apply. 3.2 Help the author create structured content and separate information from its presentation. [Relative Priority] This checkpoint is a special case of Checkpoint 1.3 and Checkpoint 5.2. that highlights structured content and independence between information and presentation as critical accessibility requirements. At minimum, ???. More advanced implementations might ???. Note that although this checkpoint has a relative priority, some checkpoints in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10] may not apply. 3.3 Do not automatically generate equivalent alternatives. Do not reuse previously authored alternatives without author confirmation, except when the function is known with certainty. [Priority 1] This checkpoint prohibits authoring tools from generating potentially meaningless equivalent alternatives, such as the object's file name, by default. The function of an object may be "known with certainty" when the object is placed by the tool for a specific purpose or the user has defined a purpose. For example, if a tool automatically generates a navigation bar for all pages on a site, it is acceptable to propagate the text equivalent(s) for images that link to searching, the table of contents, etc. At minimum, when a new object is inserted and the function is unknown, the tool should prompt the author to enter an appropriate equivalent alternative without providing a default entry. More advanced implementations might offer, as a default entry, a human authored equivalent that has previously been associated with the object by the author or within a prepackaged directory for the tool (ex. clip art gallery). Refer also to checkpoint 1.4 and checkpoint 3.4. 3.4 Provide functionality for managing, editing, and reusing alternative equivalents for multimedia objects. [Priority 3] This checkpoint requires encourages authoring tools to implement management systems for alternative equivalents in order to simplify their use. At minimum, the system should store associations between the multimedia objects and alternatives created by the author, allowing the author edit the alternatives and reuse them easily. More advanced implementations might collect alternatives from a variety of sources (the author, prepackaged, the Web) and provide powerful tools for managing the associations, including search functions and object similarity estimates. -- Cheers, Jan /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Jan Richards Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC) University of Toronto jan.richards@utoronto.ca Tel: (416) 946-7060 Fax: (416) 971-2896 /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Received on Thursday, 7 June 2001 16:37:21 UTC