- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 13:47:16 -0400 (EDT)
- To: jonathan chetwynd <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>
- cc: john_slatin <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>, Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>, Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Actually the user and the author on the Web are often not in a position to negotiate - if the authors haven't ensured a particular piece of information is included, there is not much the user can do about it. I think this group does have to go further than just giving a general idea. It is not easy to do so, but I do believe it is possible, and useful when people who are not experts try to put our ideas into practice. Cheers Chaals On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, jonathan chetwynd wrote: > >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. >> > >> > >> >> > > -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +33 4 92 38 78 22 Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Monday, 22 July 2002 13:47:21 UTC