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

Actually, aybe I spoke too hastily.  We've been trying to persuade
people to caption music videos (as part of AIR Interactive and the SXSW
Interactive Festival), with some success.  I'd hate for the "musical
performances" thing to stop that.  But perhaps that comes under 1.2 at
any rate, since 1.2 applies to time-based presentations?
 
John
 
 


"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/> 


 

-----Original Message-----
From: John M Slatin 
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 8:57 am
To: gv@trace.wisc.edu; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Action item: Re #320 and REF 1.1a ability to be expressed
in words


Gregg, your rewording of my rewording works for me<grin>.
 
Thanks! and thanks to Doyle and Roberto for the quick responses, too.
John
 
 


"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/> 


 

-----Original Message-----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 11:40 pm
To: John M Slatin; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
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/
<http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/>