Re: Propose removal or modification of the "Rorschach inkblot test" example and accompanying text.

Dear Ian Hickson,

At 20:07 13/04/2008, Ian Hickson wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Apr 2008, Steven Faulkner wrote:
> >
> > Propose removal or modification of the "Rorschach inkblot test"
> > example and accompanying text as it is inconsistent with WCAG 1.0 and
> > WCAG 2.0. Reasoning for this provided in:
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Apr/0297.html
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Apr/0299.html
>
>Removing examples to hide contradictions is counter-productive. We should
>work to resolve the contradictions, not simply ignore them.
>
>In this particular case, the error appears to be in the WCAG drafts, which
>have apparently not had the consequences of their advice thoroughly
>considered. Thus, new examples (and text for how to handle them) should be
>added to WCAG, rather than removing examples from the HTML5 draft.

WCAG 2.0 covers things like Rorschach tests, colour blindness tests, 
hearing tests, etc in the phrase "test or exercise that must be 
presented in non-text format" in the second item of success criterion 1.1
(<http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20071211/#text-equiv-all> in 
the current draft):

<quote>
1.1.1 [Non-text Content:] All non-text content has a text alternative 
that presents equivalent information, except for the situations listed below.
  * [Controls, Input:] If it is a control or accepts user input, then 
it has a name that describes its purpose. (See also Guideline 4.1.)
  * [Media, Test, Sensory:] If it is (1) synchronized media, (2) live 
audio-only or live video-only content, (3) a test or exercise that 
must be presented in non-text format, (4) primarily intended to 
create a specific sensory experience, then text alternatives at least 
provide descriptive identification of the non-text content , or (5) a 
media alternative to text that is clearly labeled as such . (For 
synchronized media, see also Guideline 1.2.)
  * [CAPTCHA]: If it is to confirm that content is being accessed by 
a person rather than a computer, then text alternatives that identify 
and describe the purpose of the non-text content are provided, and 
alternative forms of CAPTCHA using output modes for different types 
of sensory perception are provided to accommodate different disabilities.
  * [Decoration, Formatting, Invisible:] If it is pure decoration, or 
used only for visual formatting, or if it is not presented to users, 
then it is implemented in a way that it can be ignored by assistive technology.
</quote>

If you have reason to believe that the consequences of this success 
criterion have not been "thoroughly considered", please inform the 
WCAG WG as soon as possible, because WCAG 2.0 has started making 
preparations to exit "Last Call". (Some members of the WCAG WG also 
read the XTech list.)

Best regards,

Christophe Strobbe



>Henri described the real problem in detail here:
>
>    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2008Apr/0322.html
>
>We should work with the WAI to address the real problem, directing our
>advocacy efforts directly at the people providing images without
>alternative text, if we want to have any real useful effect on the Web's
>acessibility for blind users.
>
>--
>Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
>http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
>Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'


---
Please don't invite me to LinkedIn, Facebook, Quechup or other 
"social networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but 
I haven't.

-- 
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
Research Group on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/ 


Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm

Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 15:01:31 UTC