Edit comment LC-865 for Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

Quick access to

Previous: LC-958 Next: LC-959

Comment LC-865: Comment Shortname:; Commenter: Lisa Seeman <lisa@ubaccess.com> on behalf of UB access; Message-id:; Section of the document concerned:

or; Refinement of the section concerned:; Status:
assigned to; Type:; Resolution status:
Response drafted Resolution implemented Reply sent to commenter; Response status:
No response from Commenter yet Commenter approved disposition Commenter objected to disposition
Commenter's response (URI):; Comment:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0130.html

Part of Item:
Comment Type: substantive
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

text equivalents for struggling students and people with LD are often of a very different natures to the SC described.
They would typically not have all included text, point out the key detail that someone is needs to understand
Alt tags are often verbose, such as explaining or giving a sentence of context to a diagram. We often have multiple prodnotes (using HTMl with Daisy XML as a base) for a single picture often linked to different regions

descriptive alt tags would be omitted â€“ the would just confuse the user who we are trying to help identify key content and concepts.

Would such a page be conformant?

note there are many more people with these needs then who are blind. And blind users are getting all the key information anyway.
Also note:
Alt tags and prodnotes are a great way to put info in a page for LD without changing the genral use

Proposed Change:

creat an alternive SC set for pages for people with LD.; Related issues: (space separated ids); WG Notes: [TEAMB] There seems to be contradictory information here: "descriptive alt tags would be omitted â€“ the would just confuse the user who we are trying to help identify key content and concepts." "Alt tags and prodnotes are a great way to put info in a page for LD without changing the genral use" Commenter seems to asking for a set of guidelines for Web pages that are specifically targeted at audiences with learning disabilities. Does this mean there are conflicts in what our guidelines recommend and what users with LD need? Feb 27, 2007: Action item: Sean Hayes to explore proposing a SC to address providing alternative presentation of content for specific classes of users. Discussed in the 12 April 2007 telecon: Resolution: Accept 865 as amended http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2007/04/12-wai-wcag-minutes.html {not-accept}; Resolution: WCAG is a set of guidelines for general use pages. WCAG 2.0 has been written assuming that authors can produce a single version of the content that could be made accessible to everyone, although assistive technology may be needed to transform the content into an appropriate rendering. Because of the danger of excluding people with multiple disabilities, the working group has been reluctant to require multiple versions of content targeted to different audiences. We are also concerned about the privacy issues involved in requiring people to self declare disabilities in order to get suitably tailored output. The guidelines permit alternate versions of Web pages, but do not require them. We agree that there should be an activity that focuses on how to create pages just for people with learning disabilities. That is beyond the scope of WCAG itself. But we hope that related activities can develop techniques for content designed specifically for people with different cognitive, learning, and language disabilities. This would be important to determining whether we can achieve a single version of content that is accessible to all, or whether multiple versions of content would be needed.; (Please make sure the resolution is adapted for public consumption)