- From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 07:00:43 -0400
- To: jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
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