- From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
- Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 15:08:00 -0600
- To: "Wendy A Chisholm" <wendy@w3.org>, "Loretta Guarino Reid" <lguarino@adobe.com>, "Sailesh Panchang" <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I agree with Wendy and Loretta that the Gateway document should reinforce the idea that WCAG 2.0 applies to a broad spectrum of Web technologies. Wendy's idea of providing examples of text alternatives for images used in a variety of contexts and for a variety of purposes seems almost to imply that the Gateway document might work by expanding upon the examples listed in the Guidelines document. This would help the two documents reinforce one another-- and the Techniques documents could then include information about how to implement the examples discussed. (Maybe all this is already happening-- I'm not up to speed on all the moving parts!) John -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Wendy A Chisholm Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 5:54 PM To: Loretta Guarino Reid; Sailesh Panchang Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: Re: Supporting Technology I agree that we do not want to reinforce the notion that WCAG only applies to HTML and need to be careful with our examples. The Techniques Gateway should be a high-level discussion about making content accessible and I don't think it should include technology-specific examples. Instead of talking about how to use the alt attribute on the image element, we should discuss how to write a text equivalent for a variety of images used in a variety of contexts. Although the current draft of the Techniques Gateway [1] has several HTML-specific examples, refer to the editorial notes scattered through the document: "This paragraph is HTML-specific. Need broader range of examples, or more generic explanation." Each of those editorial notes is a to-do for the editor to generalize the concept so that it is not HTML-specific. If I interpret the consensus of the Techniques Task Force correctly, I think the vision of the Gateway is: After each general discussion we will link to a list of relevant techniques. For example, after the text equivalents discussion in the Gateway, we'll have several links into the HTML Techniques (e.g., using alt on image, using the object element), SVG Techniques (e.g., using the title and desc elements with the g element), etc. But we will not have HTML examples included in the discussion of text equivalents in the Gateway. I think that we can ban HTML examples in the general discussion because there will be plenty of HTML-specific discussion in the HTML Techniques. --wendy [1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-TECHS-GATEWAY-20031205.html At 06:21 PM 12/19/2003, Loretta Guarino Reid wrote: >Sailesh, > > This seems ok as long as it is clear that the HTML technique is only an >example. In the gateway document, I don't think we should assume that HTML is >always available. I think we should be careful not to reinforce the >impression >left from WCAG1 that only HTML can be accessible. > > Loretta > > > > > In which case, is it necessary to take great pains to avoid using an > > HTML technique to illustrate a point in the Gateway doc if HTML > > XHTML are going to be the "host technologies"? Where applicable, other > > technology-based examples may also be included (like say, a SMIL based > > example in the section about multi media accessibility, or a scripting > > based example when talking about device independence ). So I feel we > > we should not as a rule ban HTML(or its derivative: XHTML) based > > examples as it is the primary host technology and is widely used and > > understood. > > Sailesh Panchang > > Senior Accessibility Engineer=20 > > Deque Systems,11180 Sunrise Valley Drive,=20 > > 4th Floor, Reston VA 20191 > > Tel: 703-225-0380 Extension 105=20 > > E-mail: sailesh.panchang@deque.com > > Fax: 703-225-0387 -- wendy a chisholm world wide web consortium web accessibility initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI/ /--
Received on Saturday, 20 December 2003 16:11:09 UTC