- From: john_slatin <john_slatin@forum.utexas.edu>
- Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2003 09:18:30 -0600
- To: "'gv@trace.wisc.edu'" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
I like the idea of deleting the phrase about content that cannot be expressed in words. I'm neutral about including the exception in the checkpoint language. But if we do that, I think we need to find less abstract language than "modality-specific." I do not yet have a positive suggestion to offer (sorry!) but will work on it and try to come up with something. John John Slatin, Ph.D. Director, Institute for Technology & Learning University of Texas at Austin 1 University Station G9600 FAC 248C 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: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2003 1:08 am To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: FW: WCAG 2.0 internal draft On Nov 8th, Mathew Mirabella posted a suggested edit to 1.1 as you noted Jason in your email (at the bottom of this email) For completeness I am pasting Mathews email immediately below these comments. I looked this over and have the following comments, questions or reservations about using this proposal as is. Since I make suggestions and since these have not hit the list I am posting them to the list as suggestions. COMMENT 1 - I think we can remove "unless it cannot be expressed in words" from the Guideline but we have to include something that gives the general concept of a modality specific exception ---- or else it isn't completely accurate since we put the exception in below I suggest we add a parenthetical which reads... (unless some of the information is modality specific such as a musical performance or a modern dance.) This is something that a lot of people don't get until you give them an example. Thus I think the i.e. language should be in the checkpoint to make it accurate. COMMENT 2 - The . Eagle School - nanotech Tutorial\comments talk about taking the advice from level one and putting it as an Assertion of review (or assumption of review) at level 2. I don't think we can do that even though we suggested it earlier. If it stays as an assumption (which is the way he wrote it) then it is not testable. If you make it into an assertion (e.g. The site asserts that ....) then we violate our most recent decision to not include assertions as SC. So it looks like it has to stay as a comment under Level 1. Yes? No? Gregg ================ TEXT OF MATHEWS POST STARTS HERE. All. Below I have included the next draft of the parts of checkpoint 1.1 which have been altered as a result of re-drafting and discussion. Items inside braces {} are issues for specific comments or discussion. Please correct me if I have any of this wrong re today's teleconference. Guideline 1 - Perceivable Ensure that all intended function and information can be presented in form(s) that can be perceived by any user. {Here I have removed the "... except those aspects which cannot be expressed in words." What do we think of this?} Checkpoint 1.1 For all non-text content provide a text equivalent, or, if the content cannot be expressed in words, provide an identifying text label. 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. 2. Non-text content that cannot be expressed in words has an identifying text label explicitly associated with it. {In the current working draft, we have a sub-point inside 1. above, which states: "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)." As Greg's Highlights email suggests, have we agreed to get rid of that and leave it for level 2?} You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at Level 2 if: 1. If a text-equivalent has been used, it 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 an identifying text label has been used, it 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. You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.1 at Level 3 if: (Presently no additional criteria for this level). {?} The following are additional ideas for enhancing a site along this particular dimension: (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.
Received on Thursday, 9 January 2003 10:18:38 UTC