- From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 10:15:38 -0500
- To: "Marti" <marti@agassa.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Marti, you are right, it does fit in the checkpoint, not the guideline 1.0 ... How does this simple and elegant solution to minimizing image downloads to users pose a problem for disabled human users? Seems to solve the problem of low vision users who want to see the picture at their use level, make the picture available to be printed easily, and allows the use of detailed photos to illustrate the page. Anne At 09:26 AM 2/10/01 -0500, Marti wrote: >Anne, > The specific place I was looking to add something like that was on >http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/checkpoints.html >I think you will see that it does fit there. This is also probably a good >place to note something about illustrations. >As for the link to a larger image being an isolated image, that kind of >thing is author's choice - The link can be simply defined as an image file >or it can be a page that includes the image. I suspect that linking to just >an image file would violate a few other guidelines/checkpoints in most >cases. >Marti > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Anne Pemberton" <apembert@erols.com> >To: "Marti" <marti@agassa.com>; <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> >Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 8:28 AM >Subject: Re: Suggested addition to 1.1 > > >> Marti, >> >> I've re-read Guidelines 1, at least on draft 21, which I have >> attached below, and I don't see a place to insert what you are suggesting. >> >> I think this issue can be fully covered in the techniques, on how to do >> text equivalents for images. Techniques to use when an image is an >> illustrations, techniques to use when an image is navigational and >> techniques to use when the image is both, or even something else we >haven't >> envisioned yet. >> >> After I wrote yesterday, I thought about the situation, and when you link >> from a small image to the full sized image, the full sized image comes in >> alone, not as part of a page so cannot have an alt tag or long >description. >> All text equivalents need to be on the page with the small image, or they >> won't exist. >> >> I still feel that guidelines 1 should somehow say that the visual >> presentation must include illustrations , a minimum of one per page ... >> >> Perhaps Guideline1 could say: "Design content that be presented visually >> (images and text), auditorily, or tactually, according to the needs and >> perferences of the user." >> >> But I aggree the parentheses is a clumsy way to insert this important >point. >> >> Anne >> >> >> >Guideline 1. Design content that can be presented visually, auditorily or >> tactually, according to the needs and preferences of the user. >> >[New ] >> > [D] >> >1.1 Provide a text equivalent for all non-text content (audio clips, >> images, videos, etc.) >> >A text equivalent >> >· Communicates the same information as the non-text element. >> >· Serves the same function as the non-text element. >> >· May contain structured content or metadata. >> >· May be easily converted to braille or speech, or displayed in a larger >> font or different colors. Thereby providing access to the information for >> someone who can not see at all, who can not see well, or who needs to >> supplement visual information with auditory information. >> >Depending on the purpose and content of the non-text element, a short >> label may be appropriate while in other circumstances, a more thorough >> explanation may be required. >> > >> >> At 05:18 AM 2/10/01 -0500, you wrote: >> >Anne, >> > I think this is getting back to the difference between functional images >> >and illustrations a bit. Perhaps you can suggest some more precise >wording >> >but my point was not to have images which are there primarily as click on >> >navigation be described in detail what they look like. This is >> >unfortunately something I have seen several sites do recently and it >makes >> >the page very difficult to use. The kind of image/link you mention might >be >> >an exception, however I still think a 'short' version of the description >> >should go with the smaller (thumbnail) image and a more detailed one with >> >the larger. So perhaps alt=enlarge image of dog would work? Now the >question >> >is how to word the checkpoint? >> >Marti >> > >> > >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >From: "Anne Pemberton" <apembert@erols.com> >> >To: "Marti" <marti@agassa.com> >> >Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 7:23 PM >> >Subject: Re: Suggested addition to 1.1 >> > >> > >> >> Where should you put what the picture is? If the alt text for the small >> >> image is "enlarge image" someone who can't see the image has to click >on >> >it >> >> to find out what the image is? >> >> >> >> Anne >> >> >> >> At 04:54 PM 2/9/01 -0500, you wrote: >> >> >hmm that's a good one - how about alt="enlarge image" >> >> >Marti >> >> > >> >> >----- Original Message ----- >> >> >From: "Anne Pemberton" <apembert@erols.com> >> >> >To: "Marti" <marti@agassa.com> >> >> >Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 4:29 PM >> >> >Subject: Re: Suggested addition to 1.1 >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> What would be the suggested alt for an image that is a link to a >larger >> >> >> version of the image? >> >> >> >> >> >> Anne >> >> >> >> >> >> At 04:04 PM 2/8/01 -0500, you wrote: >> >> >> >Valid alt ... >> >> >> >For linked images should describe function of link, not look of >image >> >> >> >Marti >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Anne Pemberton >> >> >> apembert@erols.com >> >> >> >> >> >> http://www.erols.com/stevepem >> >> >> http://www.geocities.com/apembert45 >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Anne Pemberton >> >> apembert@erols.com >> >> >> >> http://www.erols.com/stevepem >> >> http://www.geocities.com/apembert45 >> >> >> > >> > >> Anne Pemberton >> apembert@erols.com >> >> http://www.erols.com/stevepem >> http://www.geocities.com/apembert45 >> > > Anne Pemberton apembert@erols.com http://www.erols.com/stevepem http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Saturday, 10 February 2001 10:13:28 UTC