Re: Question from Last Week's WCAG Teleconference

I agree with William, we need to move on. We need to focus on WCAG 
2.0.  The discussion we have had on this topic is good and should be 
incorporated into WCAG 2.0.  The purpose of proposing errata is to help 
people interpret WCAG 1.0.  Therefore, I don't want to focus on many 
changes to WCAG 1.0.  My proposal is basically what is in WCAG 1.0 already 
but tying checkpoint 3.1 to 11.1 and tidying up the example and note.

Therefore, I modify my proposal to read:
<blockquote> 3.1 Use markup rather than raster-based images to convey 
information. [Priority 2] This checkpoint is strongly tied to checkpoint 11.1.
Note: Until style and graphic markup languages are more common, minimize 
the use of text in images. For example, use HTML text styled with CSS. 
Choose common fonts (such as Arial and Times) that can be rendered using 
CSS. You may use text in images for logos and limited accent elements where 
specialized fonts and text treatments are required and cannot be achieved 
with CSS.
</blockquote>

--wendy

At 04:01 PM 10/25/00 , Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>Ian, (interesting 3.1 proposal BTW) there was a discussion regarding
>"identifying the equivalency relationships" that related to a
>conversation you and I had at Bristol during a break.  The minutes
>captured my comments this way:
>
>  >KB This assumption comes with the idea that there is an optimal
>  >presentation. From our work, there are different ways of presenting
>  >information. I don't need to present to a visual user if they have said,
>  >"don't play me sound" to let them know that there is sound here. I spoke
>  >with Ian about this because it sounded odd. He specifically said it has to
>  >be clear in the markup or the data model. It may be on my server - an
>  >explicit representation between this image and this text. He said that as
>  >long as in the data model, I would be covered. This does not have to be 
> sent
>  >to the user.
>
>I don't know if I am accurately portraying your viewpoint on this,
>but it's an accurate summary of what I understood at the time.  I feel
>that we might have been getting bogged down a bit on this proposal and
>missed the "...or in the data model" part in the discussion.
>
>Can you share your views on this with the group, specifically regarding
>the question of whether or not the server must -reveal- the equivalency
>relationship in markup to the user and/or user agent, if the
>equivalency is clearly identified in the data model used by the server?
>
>(Sample scenario:  I store everything in XML.  My XML tells me that
>the markup "<span class='myheaders'>Kynn's Friends</span>" is equal
>to the image kyfrie004.jpg.  If I send the markup to a user who has
>requested "no images", do I need to identify that it is alternative
>text in some way?)
>
>--
>Kynn Bartlett  <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                    http://kynn.com/
>Director of Accessibility, Edapta               http://www.edapta.com/
>Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet   http://www.idyllmtn.com/
>AWARE Center Director                      http://www.awarecenter.org/
>What's on my bookshelf?                         http://kynn.com/books/

--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
/--

Received on Wednesday, 25 October 2000 16:54:37 UTC