Case 5

Jason,

	Why is it necessary to include textual equivalants for graphical content
when multiple versions are being provided. Isn't an all-text version
sufficient to relieve the requirement to ALT or LONG DESC graphics in the
"graphics" version? Or, should the graphics be required in the "all text
version", to keep it balanced???

				Anne

At 10:50 AM 10/6/00 +1100, Jason White wrote:
>Case 5: The author writes different versions of "the same" content, for
>different audiences (e.g. an exposition which makes extensive use of
>charts and diagrams, and another which is written as a textual commentary
>or explanation). In the case of the former, textual equivalents can be
>provided (as in checkpoint 1.1), but the user may opt for the latter
>version instead. This is a scenario that was discussed at the meeting. It
>isn't considered in the guidelines. Query whether one can consider the two
>versions to be, in the relevant sense, "the same" content. How should the
>requirement for "accessibility" be defined under these circumstances? As
>it stands, we would require the author to provide a text equivalent
>(descriptions and explanations) to accompany the graphical version, and of
>course there would be no restriction on providing the second version (or
>other versions aimed at different audiences). Is there an issue here?

Anne L. Pemberton
http://www.pen.k12.va.us/Pav/Academy1
http://www.erols.com/stevepem/Homeschooling
apembert@crosslink.net
Enabling Support Foundation
http://www.enabling.org

Received on Thursday, 5 October 2000 20:40:15 UTC