- From: Hansen, Eric <ehansen@ets.org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 14:36:51 -0500
- To: "'w3c-wai-au@w3.org, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, >
I believe that ATAG uses the term "equivalent alternatives" while UAAG uses the term "alternative equivalents". I think that if both documents intend the same thing, they should use the same term. I think that neither term has been solidly defined. I am not sure what to make of these terms. Keep in mind that according the the WCAG definition of "equivalent" already includes the notion of it being "alternative". The equivalent is an alternative way of providing the function. Perhaps some of this can be hashed out in connection with the discussion of multimedia.... From WCAG 1.0: "Equivalent" "Content is "equivalent" to other content when both fulfill essentially the same function or purpose upon presentation to the user. <EMPHASIS>In the context of this document, the equivalent must fulfill essentially the same function for the person with a disability (at least insofar as is feasible, given the nature of the disability and the state of technology), as the primary content does for the person without any disability.</EMPHASIS>" =========================== Eric G. Hansen, Ph.D. Development Scientist Educational Testing Service ETS 12-R Princeton, NJ 08541 609-734-5615 (Voice) E-mail: ehansen@ets.org (W) 609-734-5615 (Voice) FAX 609-734-1090
Received on Thursday, 16 December 1999 15:08:55 UTC