Checkpoint 1.1 - handling the rest of the comments

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 

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 [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.



wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative

Received on Monday, 2 December 2002 16:22:15 UTC