wording for 1.1 RE: Example: Real-time feed of satellite photos

On Thu, 6 May 2004, Yvette P. Hoitink wrote:

>
>Jonathan O'Donnel's suggestion:
>> > For non-text content, provide an equivalent text alternative.
>> > If the text alternative cannot serve the same fuction or
>> > convey the same information, provide a text label or a description.
>
>Gregg Vanderheijden's remark:
>
>> Very nice Jonathan.
>>
>> We need an exception for spacers and perhaps some pure
>> decorative -- but maybe it is better to have a little
>> decorative described than risk lots of content that is
>> counted as decorative.  Also may make testing easier.
>
>Personally, I do not think the either-or is explicit enough in Jonathan's
>suggestion. It doesn't say the text label or description comes _instead_ of
>the equivalent if the text alternative cannot serve the same function. I
>know that it's implied, but I think we have to be explicit.

I don't know that it is implied. I think a text alternative needs to be
available always, although as Gregg notes below sometimes the most
appropriate is null text. But there is no reason not to have a description as
well for almost all text, although in some cases it is extremely low priority
and low value. In cases where the text alternative doesn't really achieve the
function of what it replaces, it is more important.

cheers

Chaals

>Gregg: I don't think we need an exception for spacers, that could go in the
>gateway techniques. Jonathan's suggestion tells you to provide an equivalent
>text alternative. We can tell people in gateway techniques that for spacers,
>"" is the best equivalent text alternative.

Received on Thursday, 6 May 2004 05:00:53 UTC