RE: Action item: Re #320 and REF 1.1a ability to be expressed in words

Very nice John,

 

I would suggest "musical performance" instead of "musical composition"

 

And I would like to see it stay as one checkpoint.   Something like 

 

1.1          For non-text content, text equivalents are provided that serve
the same purpose or provide the same information as the non-text content,
except when the purpose of the non-text content is to create a specific
sensory experience (for example, musical performances, visual art) in which
case a text label and description are sufficient.  

 

Details about context etc can be put into the success critieria. 

 

Gregg

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of John M Slatin
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 2:59 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Action item: Re #320 and REF 1.1a ability to be expressed in words
Importance: High

 

At last week's telecon, I took an action item to try re-wording checkpoint
1.1 in order to address objections (my own and others') to the language
about the ability to be expressed in words, and to incorporate ideas that
came up during the telecon.  Here's what I've come up with.  I apologize for
not getting this out sooner.

 

John

 

==Proposal begins==


Current wording


1.1 [CORE] All non-text content that can be expressed in words has a text
equivalent of the function or information that the non-text content was
intended to convey. [was 1.1] 


Proposed wording


1.1          For non-text content, text equivalents are provided that serve
the same purpose or provide the same information as the non-text content,
except when the purpose of the non-text content is to create a specific
sensory experience (for example, musical compositions, visual art).  

1.2          Non-text content whose primary purpose is to create a specific
sensory experience (such as musical compositions and visual art) is
identified by text labels and accompanied by text descriptions as required
by the context in which the non-text content is presented.


Discussion


This proposal breaks Checkpoint 1.1 [CORE] into two separate but closely
related checkpoints.  Each addresses a different type of non-text content.
Would require renumbering existing checkpoints 1.2 and following.

 

The proposed Checkpoint 1.1 replaces the phrase "can be expressed in words"
with a different test: the requirement for a text equivalent does not apply
if the purpose of the non-text content is to create a specific sensory
experience.  

 

The change is designed to eliminate a phrase to which many people raised
serious objections while preserving the idea that different types or
different uses of non-text content call for different types of text
alternatives.  This consideration also prompts the decision to break the
existing checkpoint into two.

 

The question whether a particular set of ideas or experiences, etc., "can be
expressed in words" is at best difficult to answer and utterly impossible to
test.  It is much easier (for content authors, developers, evaluators, and
users) to figure out whether a particular media presentation was designed
primarily to create a specific sensory experience, as music and painting
are.  This proposed change gets us out of the business of deciding what is
truly ineffable and back to problems of design and implementation.  

 

 

The proposed Checkpoint 1.2 addresses non-text content such as music or
visual art whose purpose is to create a specific sensory experience.  It
calls for text labels and descriptions (not equivalents such as tone-poems,
word-paintings, etc., etc.) as warranted by context.  The proviso about
context is messy, because what the context requires is a judgment call.  But
it's also unavoidable, and it is human testable.  It is also possible to
provide substantive guidance, either in Gateway Techniques or in EO
documents or both, as well as examples in the WCAG 2.0 document itself.

==proposal ends==

 


"Good design is accessible design." 
Please note our new name and URL!
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web  <http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/>
http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/