- From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 16:24:54 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
We received several comments on the 28 August 2002 draft about checkpoint 1.1 [1]. Mat Mirabella's rewording proposal [2] was discussed at the 7 November 2002 telecon [3] and a draft accepted [4]. After that call, Mat reworked his proposal a bit. [5] With this progress I believe we have addressed most of the comments related to checkpoint 1.1. However, there are a few more to discuss. With this email I outline six proposals to address the remaining issues. Let's attempt to resolve as many of the issues with discussion on the mailing list and reserve the teleconference time for larger issues. =========== Comment #1 Bill Mason, 28 Aug 2002 [6] Example 1 has a right arrow icon whose text equivalent is "Next Slide" but the ALT tag for the image reads only "Next". Proposal #1 Remove this image but keep the example. Rationale: This was an attempt to include illustrations within the guidelines themselves to help demonstrate the illustration checkpoint (currently Checkpoint 4.2 Supplement text with non-text content.). However, it seems to be more confusing than helpful. =========== Comment #2 George Kerscher, 20 Oct 2002 [7] level 3 currently has no criteria. I suggest: Some sites that want to conform think they have to provide the textual information each time it is presented. This becomes intrusive to using the site. For example, they use a graphical bullet (image) for their lists. The image is a picture of the corporate logo. This is described in 10 words. The user each times hears, "This is the corporate logo showing a heart with an arrow through it." There should be instructions that provide this information once and after that, probably just bullet. Proposal #2 No change to the checkpoint, handle this in techniques. Rationale: George's proposal is a good technique. We need to provide better information about writing good text equivalents. Currently (for WCAG 1.0), this is included in Core Techniques [8] and HTML Techniques [9]. =========== Comment #3 Mark Schult, 21 Oct 2002 [10] Proposes to reprioritize the current items so that level 3 has identifiable goals. Proposal #3 No change to the checkpoint. Rationale: The levels are clearly defined [10.5]. Balancing the load between levels is not reason enough for us to change the priority. At this point, it is Ok if there are not criteria at the 2nd and 3rd level (although we received several comments about the priority structure - a separate issue). =========== Comment #4 Sun (via Earl Johnson), 27 Oct 2002 [11] "Benefits" bullet #2: Suggest dropping this "or have it translated and presented as sign language," the text "reading the text" makes the point. Proposal #4 No change to the checkpoint. Rationale: reading text and viewing sign language are different. In the previous bullet we say that a screen reader can read text aloud. Translating text to sign language is a similar process that ought to be specifically mentioned. For more info, refer to an overview from signingbooks.org [13]. =========== Comment #5 Sun (via Earl Johnson), 27 Oct 2002 [11] "Examples" #4: Change "described in words" to "read" Proposal #5 Label the examples consistently throughout the guidelines. Current wording: Example 1: providing a short label for a button/link. Example 2: providing a short label and a longer explanation of a data chart. Example 3: providing a short label and a longer explanation of an animation. Example 4: providing a short label and a transcript for an audio file that can be described in words. Example 5: providing a label for content that cannot be described in words. Proposed wording: Example 1: an image used as a button. Example 2: a data chart. Example 3: an animation. Example 4: an audio file of a speech. Example 5: an audio file of a symphony. Rationale: Primarily, this is a matter of style. It also improves the consistency with the rest of the guidelines. I prefer short labels followed by detailed explanation to help a reader quickly skim for an example that meets their needs. =========== Comment #6 IBM (via Andi Snow-Weaver), 29 Oct 2002 [12] The focus of this checkpoint should be about the content, not the method delivered. Applets and "programmatic objects" should be removed from the definition of non-text content because they are the delivery method and are covered in checkpoint 5.4. If applets or programmatic objects "deliver" non-text content such as graphics, audio, or video, then that non-text content should have a text equivalent - transcripts for audio, captions and descriptions for video, etc. Scripts should also be removed because they deliver content. The content delivered is what needs to be part of the success criteria no matter how it is delivered. Proposal #6 Change the definition of non-text content to: Non-text content includes but is not limited to images, text in raster images, image map regions, animations (e.g., animated GIFs), ASCII art, images used as list bullets, spacers, graphical buttons, sounds (played with or without user interaction), stand-alone audio files, audio tracks of video, and video. Scripts, applets, and programmatic objects are not covered in this definition and are covered in checkpoint 5.4. Rationale: I agree with IBM's/Andi's rationale. =========== [1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2002/10/comments-WD-WCAG20-20020822.html#cp1-1 [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0129.html [3] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2002/11/07-minutes.html [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0151.html [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0154.html [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JulSep/0239.html [7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0071.html [8] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CORE-TECHS/#text-equivalent [9] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#images [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0075.html [10.5] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#conf-rationale [11] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0111.html [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002OctDec/0117.html [13] http://www.signingbooks.org/animations/sign_language_animations.htm -- wendy a chisholm world wide web consortium web accessibility initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI/ /--
Received on Monday, 2 December 2002 16:22:15 UTC