- From: Mirabella, Mathew J <Mathew.Mirabella@team.telstra.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 12:10:22 +1100
- To: "'W3C-WAI-GL List'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
All. Below is my first go at the re-draft. Comments are welcome. Discussion is encouraged. Mat. Checkpoint 1.1 For all non-text content, provide a text alternative for the function or information the non-text content was intended to convey. Success Criteria You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at the Minimum Level if: 1. Non-text content that can be expressed in words has a text-equivalent explicitly associated with it. * The text equivalent should fulfil the same function as the author intended for the non-text content (i.e. it presents all of the intended information and/or achieves the same function of the non-text content). 2. Non-text content that can not be expressed in words has a descriptive textual label provided as its text-alternative. * A descriptive textual label should act as a text-equivalent wherever practically possible and should at least express the technical purpose or meaning of the non-text content (if any), (E.g. a description of the target of the link, etc.). 3. Wherever possible, text equivalents should be used rather than descriptive textual labels. I.e. descriptive textual labels should only be used if the non-text content cannot be expressed in words. You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at Level 2 if: 1. If a text-equivalent has been used: * The text-equivalent has been reviewed and is believed to fulfil the same function as the author intended for the non-text content (i.e. it presents all of the intended information and/or achieves the same function of the non-text content). 2. If a descriptive textual label has been used: * A review has shown that the non-text content could not be expressed in words, and thus a text-equivalent could not be fully implemented. * The descriptive textual label has been reviewed and is believed to convey as much of the function and meaning of the non-text content as possible to match the authors intent. 3. A conformance claim associated with the content asserts conformance to this checkpoint at level 2. You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at Level 3 if: (presently no additional criteria for this level.) Definitions (informative) A text equivalent: * Serves the same function as the non-text content was intended to serve. * Communicates the same information as the non-text content was intended to convey. * May contain structured content or metadata. A descriptive textual label: * Should only be used if a text equivalent cannot be used because the non-text content is such that it cannot be expressed in words. * Describes the non-text content as richly as practically possible. * At least serves the same technical function as the non-text content was intended to serve, (E.g. a description of the target of the link, etc.). * Serves as much of the function of the non-text content as possible. * May contain structured content or metadata. Note: Text-equivalents and descriptive textual labels should be easily convertible to Braille or speech, displayed in a larger font or different colours, fed to language translators or abstracting software, etc. Non-text content: Is considered in two categories: * Non-text content that can be described in words. E.g. images used as navigation links such as arrows, etc. * Non-text content that cannot be described in words. E.g. the audio track of a symphony, etc. Issues for discussion: 1. I have used the phrase "text alternative" in the text of the checkpoint itself. This deviates somewhat from text equivalent because we may need to consider the text equivalent and the descriptive textual label as two subclasses of text alternatives. 2. What do people think of the term "descriptive textual label"? I have included the word "textual" here to make it clear that the label should not be non-text content itself. 3. We need some more definitions here with good examples of each type of non-text content (i.e. expressible in words or not expressible in words). 4. Do we need to review the benefits section? Mathew J. Mirabella. HF&SR / Centre For Accessibility. Telstra Research Laboratories. Phone: +61 3 9253 6712. Fax: +61 3 9253 6665. Address: 2/M2, 770 Blackburn Road, Clayton VIC, 3168, Australia. Web: http://www.telstra.com.au/accessibility Intranet: http://www.in.telstra.com.au/ism/centreforaccessibility Access: http://www.telstra.com.au/accessforeveryone Member: W3C WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group. http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL An Italian inventor built the first typewriter to help a blind countess write legibly. Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone because his wife and mother were deaf. The remote control was invented for people with limited mobility. Today's office scanners evolved from technologies created to make talking books for the blind. From the typewriter to the remote control, special access tools developed for disabled individuals eventually become conveniences for everyone.
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 20:25:05 UTC