- From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 14:33:10 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Hello, Michael and I chatted last week about a couple of concrete examples and wondered how they would look in an HTML checklist. Here's an attempt to describe some of the issues: Checkpoint 1.1, Minimum level success criterion 1 says, "non-text content that can be expressed in words has a text-equivalent explicitly associated with it." Checkpoint 1.1, Example 1: an image used as a button. (short description of function) A right arrow icon is used to link to the next slide in a slide show. The text equivalent is "Next Slide," so that what is read by a screen reader would be "link: Next Slide." Checkpoint 1.1, Example 5: an audio file of a symphony. (short label) An audio file is embedded in a Web page. The short label says, "Beethoven's 5th Symphony performed by the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra." In the HTML checklist, we expect to have a true/false statement that says something like: any image (embedded with the img element) that can be expressed in words has a text-equivalent explicitly associated with it via the alt attribute. **Note: there is not consensus that the statements would read like this. This is just an example for demonstrative and discussion purposes. Please feel free to improve the wording. We have said that every success criterion must have a true/false statement so that the user has to check off something for each success criterion [0]. This example of a true/false statement would apply to Example 1 but not Example 5. However, since the two success criteria have an "or" relationship, I believe it might make more sense for the user to have one checkbox for the two ala: [ true/false] any image (embedded with the img element) that can be expressed in words has a text-equivalent explicitly associated with it via the alt attribute. OR any image (embedded with the img element) that can not be expressed in words has a descriptive label provided as its text- equivalent via the alt attribute. However, for a conformance claim, you will want to have checks for each success criterion. But, is it easy to understand the following (using Example 1 as the example)? [ true ] any image (embedded with the img element) that can be expressed in words has a text-equivalent explicitly associated with it via the alt attribute. [ false ] any image (embedded with the img element) that can not be expressed in words has a descriptive label provided as its text- equivalent via the alt attribute. What about the longdesc attribute and other forms of description? [true/false] any image (embedded with the img element) that can be expressed in words has a text-equivalent explicitly associated with it via the longdesc attribute. This is additional to the first statement (marked as true). Thus, we have a variety of relationships: AND, OR, and additional. How does the "additional" map back to the checkpoints and success criteria? In this example, it seems to map back to the first success criterion, but with an "additional" relationship. Summary and questions: - success criteria seem to have at least 3 types of relationships: and, or, and additional (or "stacked"). What about the "at least one of" type as in 2.2 [1] What about exceptions as in checkpoint 1.2 [2]? - how does html:longdesc map back to checkpoint 1.1? - How do we want to deal with these relationships and mappings in our xml? We had some discussion last week about internal data vs external metadata to describe the relationships. Similar debate to using internal style sheets vs external. If external only have to fix changes in one spot. - what will the true/false statements for techniques look like? are the examples given above similar to what people have had in mind? if not, please provide examples of what you've been expecting. - i would like to see more concrete examples used in discussion. --wendy [0] http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2-tech-req/#req-checklists [1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#avoid-interfering [2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#time-based -- wendy a chisholm world wide web consortium web accessibility initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI/ /--
Received on Tuesday, 11 February 2003 14:33:20 UTC