Re: Please review for this week's call: proposal and process for the "text in images" thread

I think that this approach (having a link to a page which clearly does meet
requirements, and having that link itself meet the requirements of
WCAG) allows a page to conform to any level. I believe that is part of what
Cynthia tried to make ore explicit in her proposal for a checkpoint on this
topic.

Some proposed explanatory information about the checkpoint (using the curent
version):

The alternative page must meet the requirements for a particular conformance
level. A page that is just text may not meet the requirements of WCAG, nor
the requirements of users. 

For example, for a user who has difficulty seeing content, audio content may
still be very usful, and should not be stripped from the content presented to
them. Likewise a user who is deaf may find video content extremely helpful in
accessing the site, and should be able to use it.

If a site has an alternative version available for a page or part of a page
that does not meet the same conformance level as the rest of the site, and if
the alternative version does meet the conformance level of the rest of the
site, and if the means of finding the alternative version meets the
conformance level of the rest of the site, then the site can conform to any
level. Otherwise conformance for the site will be to the lowest conformance
level for any single part of the site.

The same principle can be applied to assesssing conformance of a page, which
may have some components that are not themselves accessible (but note also
the direct requirement for accessibility of components with a User
Interface. CMN: How does this work in WCAG 2?)

I think that is a bit waffly, but it should give the idea of how to use 11.4
in my humble opinion.

cheers

Charles McCN

On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Leonard R. Kasday wrote:

  Question:
  
  For (those rarely found) pages where extensive use of images of text is 
  justified (e.g. pages that are fundamentally artistic), can the author get 
  a double or triple A rating by linking to double or triple A compliant 
  page?   I'm not sure how WCAG 11.4  ("after best efforts, you cannot create 
  an accessible page, provide a link to an alternative page ...") 
  since  since its condition is "accessible page" with no mention of 
  priority.  Also the guideline is itself priority 1... it's confusing to 
  apply it to priority 2 requirements.
  
  If this isn't available as a general escape hatch, we need to build it into 
  3.1.
  
  Len
  
  
  There are some pages, e.g. http://www.rivertrout.com/main.html , that are 
  fundamentally artistic,where CSS text would spoil
  
  
  At 03:17 PM 10/25/00 -0400, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
  >Please:
  >review this entire message.
  >
  >Please:
  >Do not respond to this message unless you have new information that has 
  >not been presented yet.  There has been quite a lot of traffic on this 
  >thread and I have been very pleased to see people sending considerate, 
  >thoughtful messages.  I am glad to see how much information has been 
  >collected in the last couple of weeks.  However, Jason and I believe we 
  >are ready to wrap up this discussion.
  >
  >Therefore, I propose:
  >
  ><blockquote> 3.1 Use markup rather than 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>
  >
  >Thank you Cynthia for the bulk of the wording for this proposal.
  >
  >Process for Thursday's telecon:
  >Jason and I  have decided to give each person one minute to speak on this 
  >proposal.  We will then take the information gathered and figure out where 
  >to go from there.  If possible, we would like to close this at the 
  >call.  However, this is not a formal vote on this proposal, but a chance 
  >to hear each person speak for one minute (and I will be timing!!).  If you 
  >are unable to make the call, please send a 2 sentence statement to me by 
  >2:00 Eastern U.S. time (i.e. I must receive it no later than 2 hours 
  >before the working group call) and I will make sure it is represented 
  >during the call.
  >
  >Thank you,
  >--wendy
  >--
  >wendy a chisholm
  >world wide web consortium
  >web accessibility initiative
  >madison, wi usa
  >tel: +1 608 663 6346
  >/--
  >
  
  --
  Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D.
  Institute on Disabilities/UAP and Dept. of Electrical Engineering at Temple 
  University
  (215) 204-2247 (voice)                 (800) 750-7428 (TTY)
  http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday         mailto:kasday@acm.org
  
  Chair, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative Evaluation and Repair Tools Group
  http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/
  
  The WAVE web page accessibility evaluation assistant: 
  http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/wave/

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
September - November 2000: 
W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

Received on Thursday, 26 October 2000 15:36:53 UTC