- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:34:11 +1100
- To: "John M Slatin" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
- Cc: <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>, "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>, "Ken Kipnes" <ken.kipnes@oracle.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
John M Slatin writes: > Ben Caldwell wrote: > <blockquote> > 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. > </blockquote> > > I'm not sure it's a good idea to define scripts, applets, etc., as > non-text content. I agree with John. Here's the problem: if an applet is accessible via an API supported by my user agent, I won't need any "text alternative", as the API satisfies my needs by allowing me to interact with the user interface of the applet. For images and audio, however, a text alternative is necessary. I propose that applet should not be considered as "non-text content". The API requirements should be specified in 4.2 or, as John astutely suggested, a new success criterion under 1.3. There is also a requirement that if content can't be made accessible at all, (i.e., can't otherwise satisfy the guidelines), a more accessible alternative should be offered. This is where text alternatives to applets can come in as a last resort option where the API's aren't available or adequate.
Received on Wednesday, 9 February 2005 23:35:37 UTC