RE: 1.1 suggestion

I wasn't thinking of "jumping to descriptions at the bottom of the
page." I was thinking of the description sitting *beside* the image, or
coming immediately after it, as in books; as (to turn itaround) on a Web
page where a diagram or graph sits on the page for the convenience of
users who don't like dealing with prose descriptions.  Science textbooks
are full of such things-- the image is right there to clarify the text;
why not reverse it and put the text right there to clarify the image?



------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
FIGHT BACK AGAINST SPAM!
Download Spam Inspector, the Award Winning Anti-Spam Filter
http://mail.giantcompany.com



-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 10:03 PM
To: 'Mike Barta'; 'Web Content Guidelines'
Subject: RE: 1.1 suggestion



You have to 'do' something because most people don't want to get the
long description automatically.  They only want it if they ask for it.
Jumping them to the bottom of the page (rather than another page) is one
fetch time faster - but just jumps them out of context - and requires
them to hit 'back' to get back to the location. 

With any technique it seems to me that you must 'do' something to get
the long description and then do something else to leave it an return to
where you were.  Otherwise you have to stop and listen to each long
description whenever you encounter one (if it is read automatically).  

So other than saving the fetch time to jump to the long description -
I'm
not sure what the difference is that you are requesting.   It isn't more
accessible.  A bit quicker which may be more usable.

By the way.  In techniques I WOULD like to see a recommendation that
long descriptions be at the bottom of the same page.  It makes jumping
to them faster.  It means that they travel along with the page wherever
it goes. It means they get indexed with the page (which is good for
everyone) - and everyone might find the descriptions informative since
they might miss things themselves in the graphic. 

Are there other advantages?  (please post so we can capture them) Is
this enough of an advantage to call it more accessible - and to devote a
SC to it?  or just a technique or best practice comment. 
 
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 Mike Barta
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 4:23 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 Thursday, 10 June 2004 15:54:47 UTC