- From: Cynthia Shelly <cyns@exchange.microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 16:45:03 -0700
- To: "Mike Barta" <mikba@microsoft.com>, "Web Content Guidelines" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Ok, it makes sense (at level 2 or 3) to not require the user to do extra stuff to get the description, but calling it "extreme changes of context" seems confusing. Could we instead say "Text alternatives can be accessed without additional action by the user" or something like that? -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mike Barta Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 2:23 PM To: Web Content Guidelines Subject: RE: 1.1 suggestion I'd tend toward John's view here. I don't know what level it is at but it seems that differently equal has never worked. So at lvl 2 | 3 having a requirement for equal access, at least in term of work required, seems valid. .02 /m -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John M Slatin Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 7:23 AM To: Cynthia Shelly; Gregg Vanderheiden; jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au; Web Content Guidelines Subject: RE: 1.1 suggestion Cynthia wrote: <blockquote> I thought the issue with extreme changes of context was that they were confusing when they were involuntary or automatic, because the user wouldn't know what happened. If a user clicks a d-link (or any link), they expect to navigate. This seems ok to me. </blockquote> I agree that users who choose to follow description links expect something to happen, and I'm not wedded to this issue. But some sites and some users might benefit from designs that provide the descriptions without requiring an extra keypress or an additional decision. Maybe that's not a strong enough argument to warrant a success criterion-- or maybe it should be at Level 3. But I wonder. Sighted users get the images without having to *do* anything other than bring up the page. Why should a user who's blind, or a user who has trouble processing complex visual material, have to do extra work to get equivalent content? That's not how the alt attribute works... John "Good design is accessible design." Dr. John M. Slatin, Director Accessibility Institute University of Texas at Austin FAC 248C 1 University Station G9600 Austin, TX 78712 ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524 email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu Web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility -----Original Message----- From: Cynthia Shelly [mailto:cyns@exchange.microsoft.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 5:47 PM To: John M Slatin; Gregg Vanderheiden; jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au; Web Content Guidelines Subject: RE: 1.1 suggestion I thought the issue with extreme changes of context was that they were confusing when they were involuntary or automatic, because the user wouldn't know what happened. If a user clicks a d-link (or any link), they expect to navigate. This seems ok to me. -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John M Slatin Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 1:44 PM To: Gregg Vanderheiden; jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au; Web Content Guidelines Subject: RE: 1.1 suggestion Thanks, Gregg. Conforming to the proposed Level 2 success criterion (equivalents can be accessed without an extreme change of context) would involve placing the equivalent on the same page as the non-text content. For examples, see "Including a graph and its description on the same page," at http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/resource/how_to/graphic/cha rtdesc_onpage/chartdesc_onpage.html and for an example with audio, National Public Radio publishes text transcripts of items from their shows (e.g., Morning Edition) with links to the audio files. An example from this morning is "NPR: study sheds light on compulsive hoarding," at http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1920203 Sorry for the "top-posting," Joe. 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/ -----Original Message----- From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 3:10 pm To: John M Slatin; jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au; 'Web Content Guidelines' Subject: RE: 1.1 suggestion Looks good John One question. This is an old question - not tied to your rewording I think. Is Long Description or d-link an extreme change of context? If so - how does one conform to the level 2 SC? Gregg -- ------------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr. Director - Trace R & D Center University of Wisconsin-Madison -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John M Slatin Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 10:15 AM To: jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au; Web Content Guidelines Subject: RE: 1.1 suggestion 08 June 2004 rewrite of guideline 1.1 Here's yet another rewrite of Guideline 1.1. It addresses some comments by Jaso: 1. Changes "text alternatives" (in the Guideline itself) to "equivalent alternatives." This is consistent with WCAG 1.0 Guideline 1, so it takes advantage of people's familiarity with the term there. It also clears up a problem with the success criterion about null alt ( because it no longer treats the empty alt attribute as a *text* alternative. 2. Deletes the phrase "through context or markup" from L1 SC 1. I had written "Text alternatives are associated with non-text content through context or markup," and Jason had suggested adding "or a data model" to cover cases where content is produced without using markup languages and for consistency with 1.3. But I think it might be cleaner to avoid specifying *how* alternatives are associated with non-text content-that belongs in techniques. I like Mike's idea that the material about syndicated content belongs in the conformance section rather than the guidelines, but haven't tried to wordsmith that material; I've just omitted it. Mike advocates putting the requirement to synchronize equivalents for multimedia uner 1.1. This has logical appeal: multimedia is non-text content, so could well be covered under 1.1. But we still have a whole mess of issues related to multimedia, and I would suggest that that we consider them under their present heading-under Guideline 1.2. Once we get that worked out, we can consider moving the success criteria to 1.1. Meanwhile, here's my latest proposal for 1.1: <08 June 2004 proposed wording for Guideline 1.1> Guideline 1.1 Provide equivalent alternatives for all non-text content. Level 1 success criteria for Guideline 1.1 1. Text alternatives are explicitly associated with non-text content, and one of the following is true:. a. For non-text content that is functional, such as graphical links or buttons, text alternatives identify the purpose or function of the non-text content; or, b. for non-text content that is used to convey information, text alternatives convey the same information; or, c. for non-text content that is intended to create a specific sensory experience, such as music or visual art, text alternatives identify and describe the non-text content. 2. Non-text content that does not provide information or functionality can be bypassed by assistive technology. 3. Level 2 success criteria for Guideline 1.1 1. Text alternatives can be accessed without an extreme change of context. Level 3 success criteria for Guideline 1.1 1. For multimedia content, a text document is provided that includes descriptions of all important visual information as well as transcripts of dialogue and other important sounds. </08 June 2004 proposed wording for guideline 1.1> "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/ -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jason White Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 1:18 am To: Web Content Guidelines Subject: RE: 1.1 suggestion John M Slatin writes: > > The "new proposed wording for Guideline 1.1" below attempts to address the problems Gregg pointed out. This is excellent work; minor comments are included below. > > > Level 1 success criteria for Guideline 1.1 > 1. Text alternatives are explicitly associated with non-text > content through markup or contex [sic], and one of the following is true:. This raises the old question of the best generic term to use in place of "markup", where we do not want to restrict the application of the criterion to markup languages. Markup or data model is used in 1.3, perhaps "markup, a data model, or context". Whatever we choose, it should be consistent with 1.3. Also, why "text alternatives" rather than the well established WCAG 1.0 term "text equivalents?" If we mean the same thing, perhaps we should use the same terminology for consistency. If the meaning is different then I think a new term is desirable to avoid confusions, in which case "text alternative" is as good as any. > a. For non-text content that is functional, such as graphical links or buttons, text alternatives identify the purpose or function of the non-text content; or, > b. for non-text content that is used to convey information, there are text alternatives that convey the same information; or, perhaps "the text alternatives convey the same information"; the existence requirement is already specified above, I think. If it isn't sufficiently clear, perhaps the first success criterion should read "text alternatives are provided, and are explicitly associated..." > c. for non-text content that is intended to create a specific sensory experience, such as music or visual art, text alternatives identify and describe the non-text content. Fair enough. Maybe this justifies dropping the term "equivalent", as they aren't genuinely equivalent to the non-text content (or perhaps they are, given a suitably defined equivalence relation). I think this is where dissatisfaction with "text equivalent" arose and I am not persuaded that it is a strong argument. > 2. Non-text content that does not provide information or functionality can be bypassed by assistive technology. In the examples section, be sure to provide an example of this one. In what conceivable circumstances is it not trivially satisfied? > > Level 2 success criteria for Guideline 1.1 > 1. Text alternatives can be accessed without an extreme change of context. > > Level 3 success criteria for Guideline 1.1 > 1. For multimedia content, a text document is provided that includes descriptions of all important visual information as well as transcripts of dialogue and other important sounds. > > > </new proposed wording for guideline 1.1> >
Received on Wednesday, 9 June 2004 19:42:37 UTC