- From: john_slatin <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 09:45:02 -0500
- To: "'jonathan chetwynd'" <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
I didn't mean to take it off list, Jonathan-- I just hit Reply by accident, instead of Reply-All. Sorry about that! John Slatin, Ph.D. Director, Institute for Technology & Learning University of Texas at Austin FAC 248C, Mail code G9600 Austin, TX 78712 ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524 email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu web http://www.ital.utexas.edu -----Original Message----- From: jonathan chetwynd [mailto:j.chetwynd@btinternet.com] Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 1:28 am To: john_slatin Subject: Re: ftf in Linz success criteria not sure why you took this off the list. unfortunately I assumed you were refering to the granularity of the description, rather than the presence of one :-) which turns out to mean much the same when one comes to your next points. I dont believe that for instance every frame in a movie is required to be described in full.... not sure that I can help more than this off list jonathan ----- Original Message ----- From: "john_slatin" <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu> To: "'jonathan chetwynd'" <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 1:17 PM Subject: RE: ftf in Linz success criteria > Both WCAG 1 and WCAG 2 *do* specify the granularity at which the requirement > for ALT text kicks in: there must be an ALT attribute for *every* > <img> element, for example, and there must be a textual alternative > for every audio event. Although WCAG offers some guidance (in the > informative notes) > about what ALT text should *do*, authors must then use their judgment > in determining what counts as an *equivalent* alternative. > > So it turns out that my question was really twofold: > > First, what is the "unit," the equivalent in this context of the <img> > element? Is it the word, the phrase, the sentence, the paragraph-- or > something much more ill-defined (from a technical standpoint): the > *concept*? > > And, second, how can we help authors understand what might count as an > *equivalent* alternative? > > John > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: jonathan chetwynd [mailto:j.chetwynd@btinternet.com] > Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 5:55 PM > To: john_slatin; Jim Ley; Lisa Seeman; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > Subject: Re: ftf in Linz success criteria > > > The problem you pose applies equally well to alt text. > ie how much description is sufficient? > It is not for us to decide, rather the author and user to negotiate. > > thanks > jonathan > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "john_slatin" <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu> > To: "'jonathan chetwynd'" <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>; "Jim Ley" > <jim@jibbering.com>; "Lisa Seeman" <seeman@netvision.net.il>; > <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> > Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 10:50 PM > Subject: RE: ftf in Linz success criteria > > > > > > Jonathan, screen readers don't *create* text equivalents: they only report > > those that a human author composes. > > > > In another message, you contended that it would be possible to > > create > visual > > equivalents for nearly "all messages." I'm not clear what "message" means > > in this context. I'm also not clear about the granularity-- the > > level of > > detail at which you'd like the requirement for visual equivalents to > apply. > > > > > > Thanks! > > John > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: jonathan chetwynd [mailto:j.chetwynd@btinternet.com] > > Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 7:56 PM > > To: Jim Ley; Lisa Seeman; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > > Subject: Re: ftf in Linz success criteria > > > > > > > > Undoubtedly some of the creation of non-text equivalents might be created > by > > user agents, much as screen-readers currently do. > > > > In the meantime, there are very good reasons for asking authors to provide > > resources they may have available. > > > > jonathan chetwynd > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Jim Ley" <jim@jibbering.com> > > To: "Lisa Seeman" <seeman@netvision.net.il>; <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 12:33 PM > > Subject: Re: ftf in Linz success criteria > > > > > > > > > > Lisa Seeman: > > > > > > > -supply an illustration for each instruction > > > > - create a non text equivalent for all textual content. > > > > > > Are these two equivalent? (well the second contains the first.) > > > > > > Do you have a definition of what an "instuction" is? > > > > > > How many "non-text equivalents" should you include for each > text-content? > > > ie is including just audio sufficient, if so why? if not how many > > > equivalents do we provide? > > > > > > Is there a summary of discussion at the f2f to avoid us having to > > > go > over > > > well discussed topics? > > > > > > > let the debate begin...... > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > Jim. > > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 22 July 2002 10:45:06 UTC