Re: Important: ATAG and alternatives to text

The only place I see this being a problem is the 3.5 success criteria (The 
authoring tool must always keep a record of alternative equivalents that the 
author inserts for particular non-text objects in a way that allows the text 
equivalent to be offered back to the author for modification and re-use if the 
same non-text object is reused.)

I don't think we can ask developers to ALWAYS keep track of non-text equivs of 
text -even if it is a P3 checkpoint.

-Jan


Quoting Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>:

> 
> 
> Looking at our guidelines through a learning disability "lens" all 
> the guidelines are broad enough to accommodate things like 
> alternatives to text except for  3.4 and 3.5 in which we assume that 
> there would only be equivalents to non-text objects.
> 
> Should we drop the reference to "non-text" objects and make it more 
> general so that we can accommodate the development of technologies 
> that support the creation of alternatives to text for people with 
> dyslexia or other text processing difficulties?
> 
> Jutta
> 
>

Received on Friday, 19 November 2004 23:54:57 UTC