Re: draft guideline

        Reply to:   RE>draft guideline

Just a couple comments about Al's document:

I agree strongly that all images should have a text description of some kind, be it separate or located on the same page.  However, I think there are two categories of descriptions which should be considered:  objective and critical (or interpretive).  Objective descriptions simply provide information about what's happening in the image; they let the user provide his or her own interpretation.  They are similar to audio descriptions used in movies and television programs.  Critical or interpretive descriptions, on the other hand, can be used to provide either subjective opinion, where appropriate, *or* interpretive analysis which may not be immediately deduced from an objective description.  One need not exclude the other:  a chart or graph may require an interpretive description in addition to an objective one.  I would think that, in most cases, an objective description would do the trick.  However, I think these two types of descriptions should be kept separate.  In other words, is it possible that some images will require two descriptions?

Al, in your recommendations you state that links from from a description page back to an image should not be used.  I've always thought that a "return" link from a description back to its image was a useful navigational aid.  I also think that, in the case of an image map or other selectable image, a description which provides text links corresponding to the graphic links is a good idea.  Am I misunderstanding your point?  Can you elaborate?  Thanks.

Geoff Freed
CPB/WGBH National Center for Accessible Media. 


--------------------------------------
Date: 7/16/97 5:12 PM
To: Geoff Freed
From: Al Gilman

I have put a draft guideline dealing with ALT and description issues
in 

http://www.access.digex.net/%7Easgilman/web-access/ALT_and_Description_Guideline.html

This presumes only current technology; no changes in standards at all.

There are some new issues introduced, e.g. sensitive maps and site indices.

--
Al Gilman


------------------ RFC822 Header Follows ------------------
Received: by wgbh.org with ADMIN;16 Jul 1997 17:07:22 -0400
Received: by www19.w3.org (8.8.5/8.6.12) id QAA16284; Wed, 16 Jul 1997 16:57:56 -0400 (EDT)
Resent-Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 16:57:56 -0400 (EDT)
Resent-Message-Id: <199707162057.QAA16284@www19.w3.org>
From: Al Gilman <asgilman@access.digex.net>
Message-Id: <199707162057.QAA04032@access5.digex.net>
Subject: draft guideline
To: w3c-wai-wg@w3.org (WAI Working Group)
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 1997 16:57:46 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL15 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Resent-From: w3c-wai-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <w3c-wai-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/210
X-Loop: w3c-wai-wg@w3.org
Sender: w3c-wai-wg-request@w3.org
Resent-Sender: w3c-wai-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list

Received on Thursday, 17 July 1997 12:16:55 UTC