- From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 18:57:59 +0000
- To: "Richards, Jan" <jrichards@ocad.ca>
- CC: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Hi Jan, Lots of good reasons to keep the warning! To tackle the comment, the main aspect was: "This SC essentially asks authoring tool makers to judge and make claim to users which format is less accessible." We aren't intending to ask for that, but for the tool to warn the user when accessibility information may be lost (i.e. the accessibility information isn't available, or doesn't line up with the source format). The scenario would be that the user exports the current content to another format, the tool would know that information may be lost. The tool would then warn the user (e.g. pop-up or inline message) that "Some accessibility information may be lost". If it can give details (e.g. "Alt texts will be lost") fantastic, but that's not required. Formats are fairly stable, this would not need to be updated any more often than the functionality itself, as it would have to be updated in order to change which information is transferred. Is the proposed text reasonable then? "(b) Warning: if accessibility information required to meet the WCAG 2.0 success criteria will not be preserved in the output, then authors are warned (e.g., when saving a structured graphic to a raster image format). Authors may be allowed to set a preference to prevent the warning." A subtle change would be: "success criteria may not be preserved", which I would read as less requirement for knowing the exact details. Kind regards, -Alastair
Received on Wednesday, 3 November 2010 18:58:40 UTC