- From: Marja-Riitta Koivunen <marja@annotea.org>
- Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 10:22:10 -0500
- To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG <rscano@iwa-italy.org>
- Cc: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org, 'Judy Brewer' <jbrewer@w3.org>
I agree with Ian. These need to be at the same level. If the languages and data formats do not provide support for storing the information needed later when developing content it is hard to make the content accessible. Marja At 09:27 AM 3/27/2004 -0500, Ian B. Jacobs wrote: >On Sat, 2004-03-27 at 03:51, Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG wrote: > > XAG could become a Techniques Document for WCAG 2.0.... > > Like HTML, CSS, etc. techniques. > > What do you think about this proposal? > >I think XAG requirements deserve to be at the same level >as WCAG requirements. > >In the proposal linked below, the basic idea is that >WCAG 2.0 would say "To build accessible content, you start >with a format that supports accessibility." What defines >"an accessible format"? Another series of requirements that >are already well-known to the WAI Community: > > * if the format supports audio, it must also support > the ability to associate a synchronized transcript. > * if the format supports images, it must also support > text equivalents, > >And so forth. These are some of the XAG requirements today. >They themselves have techniques associated with them: > > * What's a good way to allow authors to provide alternatives? > The "alt" approach of HTML or the "switch" element of SMIL? > What are the advantages of each approach? > > _ Ian > > > > [2] http://www.w3.org/2003/11/12-ij-wcag20.html > >-- >Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs >Tel: +1 718 260-9447
Received on Saturday, 27 March 2004 10:21:26 UTC