- From: Tina Holmboe <tina@greytower.net>
- Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 16:59:04 +0100 (CET)
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
On 28 Nov, John M Slatin wrote:
> 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.
Then the text, as it stands, makes even less sense. Might I suggest a
change to
"1.1.1: For non-text content that is used to convey information, text
alternatives should either (a) convey the same information or
(b) identify the non-text content. In the latter case, the same
information must be conveyed with more extensive alternative
content either linked to or included immediately after the
non-text content."
I would also like to see a note made that if the non-text content does
NOT convey information, the alternative should make this explicitly
clear by not conveying any either.
The case of local "accessibility experts" Funka Nu who made an effort
to "diss" the guidelines due to the recommendation that all graphical
elements should have ALT-texts. They came up with some hillarious
examples - but it is a good point: let's leave out the loopholes: if
non-text content convey no information, then the alternatives should
make it explicitly clear that there IS no information. (alt="").
--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
tina@greytower.net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905
Received on Monday, 28 November 2005 15:59:19 UTC