This Wiki page is edited by participants of the WCAG Working Group. It does not necessarily represent consensus and it may have incorrect information or information that is not supported by other Working Group participants, WAI, or W3C. It may also have some very useful information.

WCAG20/Institutional Memory/SC 1.1.1

From WCAG WG
Jump to: navigation, search

Institutional Memory input for SC 1.1.1:

Input received by survey

SC

Loretta Guarino Reid

"Non-text content" is quite broad, and includes more than just images, although this is generally seen as a SC about images.

The complexity of 1.1.1 comes from trying to identify situations where it was not possible or desirable for the non-text content to have an *equivalent* text alternative. The clauses still require some sort of text description, but descriptions that serve different purposes from a text equivalent.

Sometimes this causes (confusing) overlap with other SC, since the content is listed here to make an exception and there to define what really needs to be provided. The CAPTCHA exception was an attempt to find a tolerable compromise; it does not guarantee that the CAPTCHA will be accessible to everyone.

Bruce Bailey

My recollections about 1.1.1 is that it was easier than some, just WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 1.1 but (1) calling out null alt and other situations where the @alt value is not subjective; and (2) listing situations where “a text equivalent” was not reasonable.

Andrew Kirkpatrick

I recall a discussion changing "multimedia" to "time-based media" (and that impacted 1.2 also)

David MacDonald

It w placed first because ALT text was considered the most important and well know... the arrangement of the situations was a nightmare... and continues to be..

Gregg Vanderheiden

Agree with the above.

- this is one of the most important and central cross-disability provision

- thought of as being for people who are blind -- but key to AT access for all disabilities including cognitive

- We did a lot of very careful word-smithing on the parts.

- CAPTCHA was the last one done and we still had misgivings about this one. Weren't happy with final wording but couldn’t come up with better - -and didn’t want to leave it out.

Understanding

Loretta Guarino Reid

I'd just draw attention to the sufficient techniques that do not programmatically associate the text description to the non-text content. The SC criterion says that the non-text content has a text alternative. Of course, programmatically associated text is better for the user.

Bruce Bailey

The part that could still stand to be improved is the idea of “non-text content is primarily intended to create a specific sensory experience”. I think what we have now gives authors some latitude, and I think that is okay, but how accessible a map can or should be is an issue that keeps coming up in my work.

David MacDonald

There was not a particular care played to all of the different conditions for ALT, I've been asked by lawyers etc to present on ALT and it appears we were not very thorough... the HTML5 document is picking up where we left off

Update on CAPTCHA: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Captcha_Alternatives_and_thoughts