Proposed changes to Gateway Techniques draft

The following is an omnibus message containing a number of proposed changes to the draft Gateway Techniques that Wendy posted for review. It's a numbered list of 18 items, some small and purely editorial, others more substantive. Each item includes both the current wording (<current></current>) and proposed wording (<proposed></proposed>), and a rationale. The proposed wording is intended to replacee only the material bracketed here as <current></current>-- the rest of the text in the draft should stay where it is! I hope this isn't too hard to read-- and I hope the proposals make sense, or at least serve to clarify the issues.
 
Here goes:
 
1.

<current>

Text alternatives for non-text content can be displayed in a variety of ways by a variety of user agents. Using synthetic speech, screen readers read the text aloud, helping people who do not see well or at all as well as people who do not read well. Refreshable Braille displays present the text in tactile form using a Braille alphabet. Conventional user agents such as desktop browsers include options to increase or decrease font size as well as the ability to change text and background colors. People who cannot hear an audio recording of a speech can read a text transcript of that speech. Providing text alternatives for non-text content thus makes it possible for people with different abilities using different devices to perceive the content of Web-based resources. </current>

 

<proposed>

Text alternatives for non-text content can be displayed in a variety of ways by a variety of user agents. Using synthetic speech, screen readers read the text aloud, helping people who do not see well or at all. Such synthetic speech may also be helpful to people with cognitive impairments or learning disabilities that affect the ability to understand written language. Refreshable Braille displays present the text in tactile form for the benefit of people who depend upon Braille. Conventional user agents such as desktop browsers include options to improve legibility for people with limited vision by increasing or decreasing  font size as well as changing text and background colors. People who cannot hear recorded speech can read text transcripts. Providing text alternatives for non-text content thus makes it possible for people with different abilities using different devices to perceive the content of Web-based resources. 

</proposed>

 

2.

<current>

• If the non-text content does not provide functionality or convey information, is it important for users to be aware of it?

</current>

<proposed>

• If the non-text content does not provide functionality, convey information, or create a specific sensory experience, is it important for users to be aware of it?

</proposed>

 

3.

<current>

[link to] • Short text equivalents for object elements ("alt-text") </current>

<proposed>

• Short text alternatives for object elements

</proposed>

Rationale for proposed change: GL 1.1 now says “text alternatives” rather than “text equivalents.” I propose deleting the parenthetical reference to (“alt” text) because it creates the misleading impression that we are talking about an alt attribute for the <object> element.

 

3.5

<current>

</current>

Problem: Following this link to  <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS-20040726.html#imagetextlinks> http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS-20040726.html#imagetextlinks leads to a technique that is related to Guideline 3.2, according to the HTML Techniques doc. This would be confusing!

<proposed>

Add a reference to GL 1.1 at the appropriate point in the HTML Techniques document.

</proposed>

4.

<current>

• Explicit form labels

</current>

<proposed>

·        Text alternatives for graphical buttons (input element of type=”image”)

</proposed>

<proposed #2>

Move the link to information about labeling form controls to Gateway Techniques for Guideline 1.3.

</proposed #2>

Rationale

The <label> is not a “text alternative” for the form control—it can’t be used in place of the form control in the way alt text replaces the image. By the same token, the form control isn’t meaningful without some sort of prompt or cue. I think we should address the requirement to label form controls under 1.3, because the relationship between label and form control is structural.

 

5.

<current>

• Use Client Side Image Map

</current>

<proposed>

[Delete this item]

</proposed>

Rationale:

A client side image map is not a text alternative

 

6.

<current>

• Provide alt for area

</current>

<proposed>

Provide text alternatives for selectable areas of client-side image maps

</proposed>

Rationale

By explaining how to provide text alternatives for selectable regions of image maps, this implies a recommendation to use client-side image maps. If we still want to require/strongly encourage use of client-side image maps, I would suggest doing so under 2.1 (keyboard or keyboard interface).

 

7.

<current>

• Provide redundant text links for client side image map (deprecated).

</current>

<proposed>

Delete the item

</proposed>

Rationale

I don’t see a need to provide a technique for satisfying a deprecated checkpoint.

 

8.

 

 

 

From the HTML Techniques doc:

http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS-20040726.html#object


 

12.1 Text and non-text equivalents for applets and programmatic objects

<current>

This example takes advantage of the fact the object elements may be embedded to provide for alternative representations of information

</current>

<proposed>

This example takes advantage of the fact the object elements may be nested to provide for alternative representations of information

</proposed>

Rationale

Using the word “embedded” may create the misleading impression that we’re talking about using the <embed> element within the <object> element.

 

9.

<current>

• Embedding multimedia objects

</current>

<proposed>

Delete the item or move it to 4.1

</proposed>

Rationale

When you follow the link from Gateway to HTML Techniques (http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS-20040726.html#embed), you are told that this technique relates to Guideline 4.1, not 1.1. This is extremely confusing!

 

10.

The following is an observation rather than a concrete proposal. Under CSS Techniques, the text says :No CSS techniques for this item. However, we may need to address use of CSS to load images (including but not limited to background images and images used as list-bullets via list-style-type, since these images do not take alt text. Using list-style-type: image (starbullet.gif) might be construed as an alternative technique for forcing screen readers to handle decorative images that are used to replace conventional rendering of list bullets—JAWS still reports these as “bullet.” 

 

11.

<current>

Task:

If the non-text content conveys information, then the text alternative must convey the same information. Ask, "What information does the non-text content

convey?" and provide that information in text.

</current>

<proposed>

Task:

Provide text alternatives that convey the same information as non-text content. Ask, "What information does the non-text content

convey?" and provide that information in text.

</proposed>

Rationale

Changes the first sentence to express the item as a task instead of a conditional statement.

 

12.

<current>

• and to consider the non-text content both from

</current>

<proposed>

• consider the non-text content both from

</proposed>

Rationale

Purely editorial— deleting “and to” from the second item makes it grammatically parallel to the first item and makes the sentence work.

 

13.

<current>

Providing the information in text may require more than one step. For example, a complex image such as a chart, map, diagram, or photograph of an important

person, place, event, or object, may be need two text alternatives:

</current>

<proposed>

Providing the information in text may require more than one step. For example, a complex image such as a chart, map, diagram, or photograph of an important

person, place, event, or object may need two text alternatives:

</proposed>

Rationale

Purely editorial (deletes an unnecessary instance of “be” that mucked up the grammar of the current version. Also deletes an unnecessary comma after the word “object.”

 

14.

<current>

Here is an example of non-text content used in different contexts that require different text alternatives.

</current>

<proposed>

In the examples below, a single piece of non-text content is used in different contexts that require different text alternatives.

</proposed>

Rationale:

Purely editorial to improve clarity.

 

15.

<current>

• The same image used in a different context with additional text alternative. The image of the president shaking hands with the prime minister appears

on a Web site discussing intricate diplomatic relationships. The first text alternative reads, “President X of country X shakes hands with Prime Minister

Y of country Y on January 2, 2009.” An additional text alternative describes the room where the leaders are standing and the how the leaders are standing

in relation to each other, and identifies the other people in the room.

</current>

<proposed>

• The same image used in a different context with additional text alternative. The image of the president shaking hands with the prime minister appears on a Web site discussing intricate diplomatic relationships. The first text alternative reads, President X of country X shakes hands with Prime Minister Y of country Y on January 2, 2009.  An additional text alternative describes the room where the leaders are standing, the expressions on the leaders’ faces, and identifies the other people in the room.

</proposed>

Rationale

Purely editorial, to improve clarity.

 

16.

<current>

If the non-text element is an audio file that includes spoken words, such as a recording of a speech, then it is necessary to provide a text transcript.

The transcript must include a verbatim record of everything the speaker says as well as notations of other significant sounds that are part of the recording,

such as applause, laughter, questions from the audience, andso on.

</current>

<proposed>

An audio recording. The Web page described in the previous example includes a link to an audio recording of the leaders’ press conference.

The page also links to a text transcript of the press conference.

The transcript includes a verbatim record of everything the speakers say. It identifies who is speaking as well as noting other significant sounds that are part of the recording, such as applause, laughter, questions from the audience, andso on.

 

</proposed>

Rationale

Presents the example of the audio recording in a manner more consistent with the previous examples. Makes the example more complex (audio recording now includes multiple speakers) and provides better example of what the transcript has to include.

 

17.

<current>

• Excerpts from the NBA Tape Recording Manual, Third Edition.

</current>

<proposed>

Information on describing complex images to people who are blind

</proposed>

Rationale

More clearly identifies the value of the information at the end of the link.

 

18.

<current>

Provide a text document that includes descriptions of all important visual information and transcripts of all important auditory information. Ask, "@@."

 

Captions include spoken dialogue and significant sounds including on-screen and off-screen sounds such as music, laughter, and sound effects. Audio descriptions

narrate visual elements without interfering with the audio or dialogue of a movie. Visual elements include actions, settings, body language, graphics,

and displayed text. Combing the caption and audio description text into a document creates a transcript of the multimedia, providing access to people who

have both visual and hearing disabilities. Transcripts also provide the ability to index and search for information contained in audio/visual materials.

 

For more information about when and how to write captions and audio descriptions, refer to the techniques related to Guideline 1.2.

</current>

<proposed>

Provide a single document that combines text versions of any media equivalents required by Guideline 1.2, including captions and audio descriptions, in the order in which they occur in the multimedia.

 

Combining the text of audio descriptions and captions into a single text document creates a transcript of the multimedia, providing access to people who have both visual and hearing disabilities. 

 

Transcripts also provide the ability to index and search for information contained in audio/visual materials.

 

For more information about when and how to write captions and audio descriptions, refer to the techniques related to Guideline 1.2.

 

 

</proposed>

Rationale

First paragraph describes the contents of the transcript but does not assume that readers are familiar with play scripts. Readers are referred to General Techniques for Guideline 1.2 for information about captioning and describing.

 

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.ital.utexas.edu/> http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility