- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 09:59:30 -0500 (EST)
- To: Denis Anson <danson@miseri.edu>
- cc: WAI UA group <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Exactly. (Cross-posted to PAGL. PAGL folks, I think that a technique or perhaps checkpoint which says 'include 'alternate content stuff in image where the format supports it' Priority 2 if a checkpoint, since getting the info is not that easy at the moment, and the image is likely not to be downloaded at all by plenty of user agents. ) Charles McCN On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, Denis Anson wrote: So, the issue for the UA working group would be to treat such information the same as titles on HTML markup, or alt text, and display that information to the user. That would work for me. The authoring guidelines would suggest including such text information in the image, and the UA guideline would suggest that, "When descriptive text is included in an image, that descriptive text should be available to the user." This would be equivalent to the Alt Text requirement, except that it is actually part of the image. -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Charles McCathieNevile Sent: Friday, February 12, 1999 9:13 AM To: Denis Anson Cc: WAI UA group Subject: RE: Technique or Checkpoint The relevance of the proposal to UA was a request to provide extra information which can be stored in various formats. As I understand it, GIF, PNG, WebCGM, JPEG, and some other formats allow textual information to be included in an image. My only experience of this is GIF, where the information is commonly used to control animations, but it is also possible to add titles, etc. Where those things are present in the image (or where the UA supports a given format) that information should be made available to the user. Collecting the information is the bit that is relevant to Authoring Tools but not to user agents. Charles McCathieNevile On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, Denis Anson wrote: I would argue that it is almost a checkpoint. Checkpoints should be in the approximate form of "provide this functionality." It should be obvious from the checkpoint what abilities the checkpoint provides. Hence, this isn't quite there yet. It is an arbitrary statement that you should "do this," without any explanation of why or to what extent. It also doesn't define what a "professionally written" description is: what profession? How detailed should the description be? The statement might be rephrased along the lines of: Provide a text-based means for the end user to determine the content of multimedia files (e.g. clip art). This phrasing would state the intent of the checkpoint, and be based on functionality. The technique associated with this checkpoint might be something like "Provide grammatically correct and descriptively accurate text documents and/or meaningful filenames that describe multimedia files. Now, on the other hand, is this the responsibility of the user agent? Do user *agents* include clip art and other multimedia files, or do they just render them? It seems pointless to require an agent to generate a description of files that come from elsewhere. Denis Anson, MS, OTR Assistant Professor Computer Access Specialist College Misericordia 301 Lake Street Dallas, PA 18612 RESNA The International Organization of Assistive Technology Professionals Member since 1989 -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Charles McCathieNevile Sent: Thursday, February 11, 1999 4:47 PM To: Kynn Bartlett Cc: WAI AU Guidelines; WAI UA group Subject: Re: Technique or Checkpoint Actually, it sounds like a checkpoint to me - a thing which Authoring Tools "should" do to significantly increase the accessibility of the end product. It is certainly not a priority 1. Techniques for this include supporting the use of standards which allow information to be encoded with it (such as GIF), as well as asking User Agent Guidelines to consider providing access to that information. Charles McCN On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Kynn Bartlett wrote: At 03:52 p.m. 02/11/99 -0500, Jutta Treviranus wrote: >Should the point about "Including professionally written descriptions for >all multimedia files (e.g., clip art) packaged with the software" >be a checkpoint and therefore something that must or should be done or >should it be a technique and therefore a suggested way of fulfilling the >guideline 2.6? This sounds like a technique to me. The principle is: "Make it easy for users to supply alternative text." The technique is: "...by including default descriptions for things you give them." Anyone have suggested working for the checkpoint, though? -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://www.kynn.com/ Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet http://www.idyllmtn.com/ Six Principles of Accessible Web Design: http://www.kynn.com/+six Spring 1999 Virtual Dog Show! http://www.dogshow.com/ Enroll now for my web accessibility course http://www.kynn.com/+access --Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +1 617 258 0992 http://purl.oclc.org/net/charles W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI MIT/LCS - 545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139, USA --Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +1 617 258 0992 http://purl.oclc.org/net/charles W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI MIT/LCS - 545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139, USA --Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +1 617 258 0992 http://purl.oclc.org/net/charles W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI MIT/LCS - 545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139, USA
Received on Friday, 12 February 1999 09:59:50 UTC