RE: "Identify the image"

Jim Thatcher wrote:

<blockquote>
I think this SC should read: 
1.1.1 For non-text content that is used to convey information, text alternatives convey the same information.

Why doesn't it? And I know there must be a good reason why you have "identify" in there. 
</blockquote>

My memory (I haven't checked the minutes so may be misremembering here) is that we were trying to make sure we'd accounted for instances where a single text alternative would not be enough  to convey the same information as the non-text content. A chart might e an example-- in HTML, the alt attribute would be used to identify the image and the information conveyed by the chart would be conveyed either inline or via longdesc.

Does this address your concern?
Thanks,
John

PS Delighted to hear you've only got two other concerns!!

"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: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jim Thatcher
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 7:26 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: "Identify the image"



I add my congratulations for a job well done. Terrific!

I have a concern about the first Success criterion (now that is scary - but actually I only have two other concerns about the whole document):

1.1.1 For non-text content that is used to convey information, text alternatives identify the non-text content and convey the same information.

I think the text alternative should NOT "identify" the non-text content. It should convey the information of the non-text content. 

There is heading image on the left side of http://borders.com with the text in white letters on a greenish-blue background. The text is "Browse". The information to be conveyed is "Browse." Identifying the image and conveying the information could result in something like: alt="blue background heading image, browse", or worse, alt= "heading image on the left side of the page with the text in white letters on a greenish-blue background, browse". 

I think this SC should read: 
1.1.1 For non-text content that is used to convey information, text alternatives convey the same information.

Why doesn't it? And I know there must be a good reason why you have "identify" in there. 

Jim
 
Accessibility Consulting: http://jimthatcher.com/
512-306-0931

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 4:19 PM
To: 'Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Congratulations !!


Yes - there will be some differences between WCAG 1.0 and 2.0.   And we will
need to decide as a group at some point if we want to advise people on what to do about that or not.  

One thing that has been suggested is that when WCAG 2.0 comes out people be
allowed to conform to one or the other.   Including being able to use WCAG
1.0 for older pages and WCAG 2.0 for new pages.

We don't have to say anything on this but I think there was interest in creating some advice to those who might set policy in organizations or publicly to help them understand what might make more sense if trying to achieve different things.  It wouldn't go in the guidelines but in some other doc.  Either 'Understanding WCAG 2.0' or another doc.

 
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 Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 4:31 AM
To: 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: R: Congratulations !!


Thank u!
Only a note from a new document from EU: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/e-government/resources/eaccessibility/sectio
n_5.asp#one

Recommendation 12
Ensure that government policy now builds applicable W3C WAI guideline requirements into all public procurements of new website designs, major upgrades, and all outsourced content production (such as reports, publications etc). In the case of software procurement, such requirements should apply equally regardless of the licensing model (open or closed-source). Note: This will normally require WCAG 1.0 Level Double-A, and may also include ATAG 1.0 Level Double-A and UAAG 1.0 (with an appropriate conformance profile) where these would also be applicable.

Recommendation 14
Plan now to get existing sites up to at least Level A in the short term (by the end of 2006) and to achieve Level Double-A in the mid-term (by end of 2008), prioritising carefully work applied to individual sites in order to enable the quickest resolution of the most common problems and thus achieve the biggest impact.

This means that by end of 2008 valid code is a requirement in Europe.




-----Messaggio originale-----
Da: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
Inviato: giovedì 24 novembre 2005 7.14
A: 'Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Oggetto: RE: Congratulations !!


Hi Roberto,

 There were many proposals with regard to validity, well formedness,
parse-ability etc.   The requirement in success criterion 4.1.1 was the one
that the group reached consensus on.  This was at the Nov 10 meeting. 
 
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 Roberto Scano (IWA/HWG)
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 1:42 PM
To: gv@trace.wisc.edu; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Congratulations !!


Sorry Gregg,
What mean this?

Optional Techniques (Advisory) for 4.1.1
Although not required for conformance, the following additional techniques should be considered in order to make content more accessible. Not all techniques can be used or would be effective in all situations.  Conforming to specifications.  Validating delivery units.
 
There was a vote about validity where there was a decision that validity and conformance to other specification is an optional?

----- Messaggio originale -----
    Da: "Gregg Vanderheiden"<gv@trace.wisc.edu>
    Inviato: 23/11/05 20.09.53
    A: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org"<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
    Oggetto: Congratulations !!
      
    Congratulations everyone.
    
    We made the deadline and we have a new public draft of the WCAG 2.0
    
    http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/
    http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
    http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-HTML-TECHS/ 
    
    This was a massive effort by everyone.   We now have a cleaner, better,
and
    better documented version than we have ever had. 
    
    The techniques will need a work now - and we need to clear out the rest of
    the issues on the guidelines etc.  I'm sure we will find things in the
    "UNDERSTANDING WCAG 2.0" doc (the old Guide Dog alias Guide doc) as well
    since it is a first draft.  It is amazing when you look at it to remember
    that we assembled and wrote that whole thing in just the last couple months.
    
    
    Lots still to do, but are on our way I think.  
    
    For now -- enjoy a week off well earned.  For those in the US - Happy
    Thanksgiving Day.   For the rest - a week off and our giving of thanks
to
    you for all your work. 
     
    Gregg, John, Wendy and Ben   
    For all the WCAG Chairs and Editors
    
     -- ------------------------------ 
    Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
    Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
    Director - Trace R & D Center 
    University of Wisconsin-Madison 
    
    
    
    Hi Wendy, Judy, All,
    
    Done docs have been published on http://www.w3.org/TR/
    
    HTML Techniques for WCAG 2.0
    W3C Working Draft 23 November 2005
    This version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-HTML-TECHS-20051123/
    Latest version: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-HTML-TECHS/ 
    
    Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 W3C Working Draft 23 November 2005
    This version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-WCAG20-20051123/
    Latest version: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ 
    
    Understanding WCAG 2.0
    W3C Working Draft 23 November 2005
    This version: http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20051123/
    Latest version: http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20 
    
    Regards,
    Matthieu
    
    
    
        

[Messaggio troncato. Toccare Modifica->Segna per il download per recuperare la restante parte.]

Received on Monday, 28 November 2005 15:43:28 UTC