- From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 15:17:40 -0400
- To: WAI-AUWG List <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
To help people understand the implications of the proposal (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2009AprJun/0010.html), here's an example workflow of a person uploading a bunch of images to a photo-sharing site: 1. author logs into the photo sharing site 2. author uses the uploader feature to upload 50 pics of a vacation (XYZ0001.png, XYZ0002.png,..., XYZ0050.png) into an album the author calls "Paris 2009". 3. a prompt appears asking the author to write descriptive labels for each image to facilitate text searching and access by people with disabilities. [This meets B.2.1.1 (prompting for accessibility info. req.) and also B.2.4.1.] 4. Since no label or description is included in the photo metadata no default @alt value is provided. [meeting B.2.4.2] 5. the author logs off without adding individual text alternatives (ending their "authoring session") 6. the photo sharing site assigns the @alt strings "Photo 1 of 50 of album Paris 2009" [meeting B.2.4.3 because this info isn't equally available to user agents] 7. when the author logs back in they still see indicators on the images and/or the album that reminds them that the images are still lacking descriptive labels. [meeting B.2.2.1 (Check Accessibility req.)] NOTE: the page will NOT meet WCAG 2.0 because the text alternative does not serve the equivalent purpose - BUT REMEMBER there is no absolute requirement of ATAG 2.0 that all user-specified content meet WCAG 2.0. Cheers, Jan
Received on Friday, 17 April 2009 19:18:22 UTC