Re: ATAG 2.0 In-group checkpoint review: A.1.1

Hi Roberto:

Thanks for this. I guess the question is: how close should we stay to 
WCAG? WCAG has a guideline: "Provide text alternatives for all non-text 
content" and in their success criteria they clearly differentiates 
between "presenting information" and "responding to user input".

I'm wondering whether your suggested phrase "used to convey information" 
might be misinterpreted as excluding the functional objects?

Cheers,
Jan




 > Roberto Scano:
 > I've got another proposal:
 >
 > A.1.1 Provide text alternatives for all non-text content that are used to
 > convey information [Priority 1]





Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG wrote:
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-au-request@w3.org] On Behalf
> Of Jan Richards
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 10:48 PM
> To: List (WAI-AUWG)
> Subject: ATAG 2.0 In-group checkpoint review: A.1.1
> 
> 
> 
> [1] Checkpoint Text: A reviewer noted that the text should be changed to
> match WCAG. A possibility (as stated in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2006AprJun/att-0016/12_2005_c
> omment_responses.html) 
> 
> is to amend the text - but actually I don't mind keeping it the way it 
> is to clarify its applicability - here are the two possibilities:
> 
> A.1.1 Provide text alternatives for all non-text content in the user
> interface. [Priority 1]
> 
> A.1.1 Provide text alternatives for all non-text content. [Priority 1]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Jan Richards, M.Sc.
User Interface Design Specialist
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC)
Faculty of Information Studies
University of Toronto

   Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
   Web:   http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca
   Phone: 416-946-7060
   Fax:   416-971-2896

Received on Wednesday, 26 April 2006 13:18:40 UTC