- From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>
- Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 17:02:27 -0800
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Al, As I learn what speech readers do with alt text I am somewhat confused myself what should be there ... Usually I use a one or two word alt tag, "frog", "Martin Luther King", etc., but if I'm trying harder, I may use "drawing of frog", "photo of M. L. King" ... following this logic, I'd use "Logo for Double-A Conformance, W3C-WAI Guidelines 1.0" ... Anne At 10:47 AM 12/29/00 -0500, Al Gilman wrote: >At 09:25 AM 2000-12-29 -0500, Leonard R. Kasday wrote: >>Hmmm. Speaking of small problems with the logo, presently the image has >> >>ALT="Level Double-A conformance icon, W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility >>Guidelines 1.0" >> >>Following the principle that ALT should be an equivalent for what the >>sighted person sees, would it not be better to have >> >>ALT="W3C: WAI triple A, WCAG 1.0." >> >>The longer description is an explanation that in principle is seen by >>everyone, so it should be the TITLE >> >>TITLE="Level Double-A conformance icon, W3C-WAI Web Content Accessibility >>Guidelines 1.0" >> > >AG: > >I have to admit to a violent negative reaction to this suggestion. > >Both of the above spellings for ALT text satisfy the sense of 'equivalent' as >used in checkpoint 1.1. It is a loose equivalence and they both meet this >loose criterion. It is an equivalence of sense; not of spelling. And at the >more superficial level that you are evaluating 'equivalence' in the above, the >answer is _no_, the ALT should not be 'equivalent' to the visual presentation >_in those terms_. It should be _different_ in those terms so as to be both a) >equivalent at the deeper level and b) effective in the alternative >presentation. The ALT text as understood when heard should be equivalent to >what the sighted user understands on seeing the visual logo. "What the >sighted >user _sees_" is too medium-specific to be the base for equivalence >comparison. >"What the sighted user _learns_" is closer. > >The fact is that telegraphic diction such as exemplified by the suggested >alternative ALT above works in a visual environment where the user can random >scan over the component elements, and does not work well in a serial pass over >the content such as in synthetic speech. The more expanded version is more >likely to be comprehensible when read aloud than is the series of cryptic >blurps. > >I have to realize that the intensity of my reaction is probably because the >distinction is subtle and sustaining a consensus for any resolution of such a >subtle distinction is tenuous. > >Backing off from the initial reaction, I think that the meta-guideline that >this suggestion violates is that "the ALT text should be easy to grasp >(follow) >when read aloud in context." > >This may sound like "the ALT text should be designed for how it appears in >Lynx." That is my home base of experience and bias. But what the Lynx >display >communicates to me, the sighted, is some of what make the ALT text >effective or >ineffective communication in serial speech presentation. Which we do need to >care about, even while it is not the only presentation we want to make >effective. > >Al > >>Len >> >> >>At 02:07 PM 12/26/00 -0500, Bailey, Bruce wrote: >>>I hesitate to bring it up, but there is also the issue that the official >>>versions have some flaws. There was the issues with .png files being served >>>instead of .gif (I think that's been resolved) and coming up blank with some >>>popular browsers. The WAI button don't use the "browser safe" palette and >>>are larger (in bit depth and pixel size) than they need to be. The WAI >>>conformance icons also don't match up nicely with the other W3C banner >>>buttons (the "W3C" portion is too small). Take a look at the bottom of the >>>W3C home page to see what I mean. It's been about a year since I first >>>pointed these picayune problems out. Any chance they will be fixed? >>> >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org >[<mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org%5DOn>mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On >>> > Behalf Of Leonard R. Kasday >>> > Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 3:13 PM >>> > To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org >>> > Subject: local copies of WAI logo >>> > >>> > >>> > Here's what I hope is a really simple question. >>> > >>> > The present conformance page >>> > ><http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG1-Conformance.html>http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG1-Co >nformance.html >>> > >>> > says to >>> > reference the copy of the logo on the w3c servers >>> > >>> > <A >href="<http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG1A-Conformance>http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG1A >-Conformance" >>> > title="Explanation of >>> > Level A Conformance"> >>> > <IMG height="32" width="88" >>> > src="<http://www.w3.org/WAI/wcag1A>http://www.w3.org/WAI/wcag1A" >alt="Level >A conformance >>> > icon, W3C-WAI >>> > Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0"></A> >>> > >>> > >>> > Is there any problem in simply coping the logo onto the page? >>> > In other >>> > words, the only difference would be to replace src with something like >>> > >>> > src="images/wcag1A.gif" >>> > >>> > which refers to the local copy on the site? >>> > >>> > Len >> >>-- >>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>http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday ><mailto:kasday@acm.org>mailto:kasday@acm.org >> >>Chair, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative Evaluation and Repair Tools Group >>http://<http://www.w3.org/>www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ >> >>The WAVE web page accessibility evaluation assistant: >><http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/wave/>http://www.temple.edu/ >inst_disabilities/piat/wave/ >> > > 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 Friday, 29 December 2000 17:06:48 UTC