Re: definition Re: RE Checkpoint 3.4 again

The basic premise of non-text content was described well by Charles:

"Something that doesn't rely on writing to communicate its content.
Normally, a picture, some sound, a movie, and so on. "

Although, the UAAG defn is useful as well.
  "Text content" is content that is composed of one or more
   text elements.

Jason's suggestion is logical, but again not quite as simple as I am hoping 
for:
Non-text content: information which does not satisfy the definition of
text content, but which is meant to be perceived and interpreted primarily
by a human being (sounds, graphics, etc.).

Therefore all definitions rely on defining "text" Perhaps the thing to do 
is write the UAAG defn of text in less technical terms.  It is 
understandable that the UAAG defn needs to be more technical, and I would 
like to reference it for those in our audience who do want something 
specific and complete. For our audience we need something less technical.

How about these definitions:

Text: words presented in written language intended for people to read.

(is "word" internationalized? is that why UAAG had to use "characters"? if 
that's the case, what if we just drop "words presented in" and leave the 
defn as "written language intended for people to read.")

Non-text content: Information presented without written language intended 
to be understood by people.

--wendy

At 10:30 AM 8/2/01 , Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
>Hi folks,
>
>The UAWG has spent a lot of time on these definitions (even though
>this is more of a content issue). Please check out our definitions
>in the 31 July draft [1]:
>
>Text:
>
>   In this document, the term "text" used by itself refers to a sequence
>   of characters from a markup language's document character set. Refer
>   to the "Character Model for the World Wide Web " [CHARMOD] for more
>   information about text and characters. Note: This document makes use
>   of other terms that include the word "text" that have highly
>specialized
>   meanings: collated text transcript, non-text content, text content,
>   non-text element, text element, text equivalent, and text transcript.
>
>Then:
>
>   As used in this document a "text element" adds text
>   characters to either content or the user interface.
>   Both in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 [WCAG10]
>   and in this document, text elements are presumed to produce
>   text that can be understood when rendered visually, as
>   synthesized speech, or as Braille.
>
>Then:
>
>   A text element may consist of both text and non-text data.
>   For instance, a text element may contain markup for style
>   (e.g., font size or color), structure (e.g., heading levels),
>   and other semantics.
>
>   "Text content" is content that is composed of one or more
>   text elements.
>
>   A "non-text element" is an element (in content or the user
>   interface) that does not have the qualities of a text
>   element. "Non-text content" is composed of one or more
>   non-text elements.
>
>Then:
>
>  Note that the terms "text element" and "non-text element" are
>  defined by the characteristics of their output (e.g., rendering)
>  rather than those of their input (e.g., information sources)
>  or their internals (e.g., format). Both text elements and
>  non-text elements should be understood as "pre-rendering"
>  content in contrast to the "post-rendering" content that
>  they produce.
>
>There's even more, but the above paragraphs are the key ones.
>
>Why do we go to such lengths?
>
>  - We need the term "text" to mean character sequence for some
>    functionalities like text search. Our requirements are limited
>    to characters (e.g., no requirement to search for pictures
>    of characters in images).
>
>  - The term "non-text element" in WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 1.1
>    includes things like ascii art, which is composed of
>    characters. Therefore, we wanted to define "text element"
>    and "non-text element" to be consistent with the intention of
>    the checkpoint. It makes sense to say that a text element
>    "adds characters" that "can be understood" when rendered.
>    Non-text elements do not have this property.
>
>
>  - Ian
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/WD-UAAG10-20010731/glossary#terms
>
>
>Kynn Bartlett wrote:
> >
> > At 8:11 PM -0400 2001/8/01, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> > >So here is an attempt:
> > >
> > >non-text (an adjective, as in "non-text element")
> > >Something that doesn't rely on writing to communicate its content.
> > >Normally, a picture, some sound, a movie, and so on. Note that this 
> usualyl
> > >referes to writing as characters output by the computer.
> > >A picture of some writing, that is intended to be read, is both a non-text
> > >element (in that it does not produce letters or words that the computer
> > >renders) so it needs a text equivalent for many users, and a text 
> element in
> > >that it relies on written words rather than communicating graphically.
> >
> > Please don't allow something to be both "x" and "non-x" at the same
> > time.  The logical inconsistency is just too much to simply bury in
> > the glossary.
> >
> > Here's a straw man definition:
> >
> > "Text is any content encoded in Unicode-style letters and/or glyphs.
> > Non-text is anything else.
> >
> > Someone who is more up on RFCs and the like can fill in a more
> > technically precise term for "letters".  If this were 1983 I'd be
> > saying "ASCII characters."
> >
> > --Kynn
> >
> > --
> > Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
> > Technical Developer Liaison
> > Reef North America
> > Accessibility - W3C - Integrator Network
> > Tel +1 949-567-7006
> > ________________________________________
> > BUSINESS IS DYNAMIC. TAKE CONTROL.
> > ________________________________________
> > http://www.reef.com
>
>--
>Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>Cell:                    +1 917 450-8783

--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
seattle, wa usa
/--

Received on Thursday, 2 August 2001 11:28:13 UTC