- From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 19:07:28 -0400
- To: "Hansen, Eric" <ehansen@ets.org>
- CC: "'w3c-wai-ua@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
"Hansen, Eric" wrote: > > To: UA List > From: Eric Hansen > Re: Checkpoints 7.5, 2.5, 2.6, 1.5, 3.8 > > This memo concerns Ian's memo [2] (Re: Proposal for 7.5 [Was Re: Issue with > checkpoint 7.5 (search) and serial...) and relates to other memos. > > ==== > > Suggestion 3: Clarify the meanings of checkpoints 2.5 and 2.6. > > It looks like in checkpoints 2.5 and 2.6 when we refer to "non-text content" > we mean "non-text elements", i.e., content that would require text > equivalents per WCAG checkpoint 1.1. Please correct me if I am wrong in this > assumption. I am thinking that since we use the term "recognized" in front > of "text equivalent", one should also put "recognized" in front of "non-text > content" because there are lots of cases in which the system might not > recognize non-text content (elements). Current markup specs do not allow > identification of all non-text elements. > > Old: > > "2.5 For non-text content that has no recognized text equivalent, allow > configuration to generate repair text. If the non-text content is included > by URI reference, base the repair text on the URI reference and content type > of the Web resource. Otherwise, base the repair text on the name of the > element including the non-text content. [Priority 2] > Note: Some markup languages (such as HTML 4 [HTML4] and SMIL 1.0 [SMIL] > require the author to provide text equivalents for some content. When they > don't, the user agent is required to repair the invalid content by > generating a text equivalent. Refer also to checkpoint 2.6. > Techniques for checkpoint 2.5 > "2.6 When the author has specified an empty text equivalent for non-text > content, do not generate one. [Priority 3] > Note: Authors may provide an empty text equivalent (e.g., alt="") when one > is required by specification, but the non-text content has no other function > than pure decoration. Please refer to the Web Content Accessibility > Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10] for more details. Refer also to checkpoint 2.5. > Techniques for checkpoint 2.6" > > New: No change suggested if my assumption about "non-text content" is > correct. I think that I agree with Eric's assessment about the relationship between 2.5/2.6 and WCAG 1.1. I am not sure about adding "recognized" in front of "non-text content" since we would end up saying "recognized video" or "recognized captions" everywhere. This, to me, is still an editorial issue: include "recognized" in every checkpoint, or factor it out? I am favorable to stating once in the applicability section (which means we could/should remove "recognize" from each checkpoint's text). - Ian -- Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 831 457-2842 Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Monday, 28 August 2000 19:07:30 UTC