Equivalent issue

This is a summary from what I have seen on this issue:
1. The term "Primary" content used in WCAG 1.0

Concerns raised:
a. The term "primary" implies that some content is not considered as 
important as other content

Proposal: To use the term "equivalency target".  The definition is based on 
a user, rather than an author perspective.  A user can select an equivalent 
for any element that is not usable by them.  The element that is not usable 
to them is referenced as the "equivalency target" of the equivalent they 
select for rendering.  The author therefore does not necessarily need to 
consider the term "equivalency target" in the equivalents that they prepare 
for elements in their document.

2. How equivalent are "Equivalents"
The terms used used to discuss this issue include asymmetrical and 
symmetrical relationships between equivalents.  There has also been 
discussion of mathematical relationships for equivalency.  Some people seem 
to want to require some type of "mathematical" equivalency for equivalents 
or at least have authors view equivalents as equally usable by people 
without disabilities to get the same information.

Proposal:  This is really a WCAG issue and this is where this type of 
definition needs to be made.  UAAG can only deal with equivalents that can 
be recognized in markup and offer those for rendering to the user.  The 
user agent cannot test and therefore guarantee that any recognized 
equivalents actually provide the same information to the user.

Has anyone raised this with WCAG?




3.



Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
MC-574
College of Applied Life Studies
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820

Voice: (217) 244-5870
Fax: (217) 333-0248

E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu

WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua

Received on Wednesday, 8 November 2000 13:35:59 UTC