Re: Checkpoint 3.4 again

Let checkpoint 3.4 read as follows:

Illustrate text content with related content in other modalities such as 
graphic images (drawings, photos, etc.) and animations, multi-media, and 
sound files.

This is easily machine testable by testing for the presence of non-text 
content. The second step of testing, to determine if the non-text content 
is illustrative of the text or not. I'm not sure how to tell the difference 
between a gif that is an illustration and a gif file that is a fancy 
version of the title other than eyeballing it.

Charles provided some excellent success criteria. I'd rather work on 
rounding his out than start from scratch.

                                                         Anne


At 02:11 PM 7/30/01 +1000, Jason White wrote:
>Checkpoint 3.4 currently reads:
>
>"Use multimedia to illustrate concepts."
>
>The corresponding checkpoint in WCAG 1.0 (checkpoint 14.2) read as
>follows:
>
>"Supplement text with graphic or auditory presentations where they
>      will facilitate comprehension of the page."
>
>In order to move this discussion forward, please indicate:
>
>a. Whether you are satisfied with either of the above formulations.
>
>b. If not, please provide a proposal that includes the following
>information:
>
>1. Your preferred alternative wording for checkpoint 3.4.
>
>2. Your rationale (why you think your proposal is better, whom it
>    would benefit, and why you think it would benefit them).
>
>3. Success criteria: what would a web content developer need to
>    accomplish in order to meet the checkpoint.
>
>Unless those who are interested in this issue start providing concrete
>proposals of this kind, I suspect the discussion will continue to
>reiterate the disagreements and give rise to the confusions which have
>characterised it up to this point.

Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com

http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45

Received on Monday, 30 July 2001 07:05:18 UTC