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

MessageJohn, Gregg and All -

I too, think musical performance is a good idea as opposed to musical composition.  I like Gregg's idea of one checkpoint and proposed wording.  Nice job - thanks.

Doyle 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gregg Vanderheiden 
  To: 'John M Slatin' ; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org 
  Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 8:39 PM
  Subject: 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/