- From: Ben Caldwell <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 09 Feb 2005 15:08:27 -0600
- To: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
- CC: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au, Ken Kipnes <ken.kipnes@oracle.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Chris Ridpath wrote: > Is there anything in the guidelines that requires applets and other > programmatic objects to have a text equivalent? It doesn't seem to be > covered by 4.2. I think we should consider modifying our definition of non-text content to include scripts and other programmatic objects as *functional* non-text content. That way, guideline 1.1, level 1, success criterion 1 would require a text alternative that describes the purpose of function of programmatic objects and guideline 4.2 would address the need to either make that programmatic content directly accessible to provide an accessible alternative. -Ben -- Ben Caldwell | <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu> Trace Research and Development Center <http://trace.wisc.edu>
Received on Wednesday, 9 February 2005 21:10:34 UTC