Re: definition Re: RE Checkpoint 3.4 again

Hi Ian and all,

I agree with Wendy in that:
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."

But I don't find very guessed right the suggestion of Ian for the meaning of
"Text content":
"Content that may be understood by people as human language when rendered
visually, as speech, or as Braille."

Neither the definition of  Non-text content:
Content that, when rendered, does not convey meaning through human language.

Because the image (a comic, a movie) also has a language that can be
understood by people. And because a sound file, a video or an animation can
transmit meaning through the human language.

Maybe the difference rests in that the text is alphanumeric.

But I don't dare to suggest a definition in English!!

So...

Regards,
Emmanuelle

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
To: "Wendy A Chisholm" <wendy@w3.org>
Cc: "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn@reef.com>; "Charles McCathieNevile"
<charles@w3.org>; "Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo"
<emmanuelle@teleline.es>; "WAI Cross-group list" <wai-xtech@w3.org>;
<ij@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2001 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: definition Re: RE Checkpoint 3.4 again


> Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
> >
> [snip]
>
> > 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.")
>
> I don't think that word is internationalized, but you should ask the
> I18N
> folks.
>
> Does "read" include spoken or brailled? That should be made clear.
>
> > Non-text content: Information presented without written language
intended
> > to be understood by people.
>
> I think that it's important to be clear whether you are talking about:
>
> a) Encoding of information
> b) Presentation of information.
>
> In UAAG, we use "content" for pre-rendering info (content
> equals what's in the DOM, in UAAG 1.0).
>
> We use "text content" and "non-text content" for post-rendering,
> however. We did this to reconcile UAAG 1.0 with WCAG 1.0 and
> because we found it important for our requirements to
> distinguish the two.
>
> May I suggest something like
>
>  Text content:
>        Content that may be understood by people
>        as human language when rendered visually, as speech,
>        or as Braille.
>
> Non-text content:
>        Content that, when rendered, does not convey
>        meaning through human language.
>
> At first glance, these definitions would be consistent
> with UAAG 1.0.
>
> Note that these definitions allow pictures of letters
> to be considered text content - is that what you expect?
> These definitions are post-rendering only, so if you
> have requirements related to formats (e.g., text formats),
> proceed with caution.
>
>  - Ian
>
> --
> Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> Cell:                    +1 917 450-8783
>

Received on Thursday, 2 August 2001 18:39:03 UTC