Thread Subject: Re: Definition Consensus Decision: Text

Note

This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.

From: Sean Hayes
Date: Tue, Mar 18 2008 9:40 AM

So I decided to analyse evaluate the scale of the problem in order to make a decision today, my assessment is we do not in fact need to change that much. And there are a few tweaks either way.

My preference is to avoid the PD debate hijacking the text definition, and go for a non-PD definition of text with the tweaks below, and letting the WCAG meaning be captured by 3-U for harmonisation purposes.

NB We do need to define "text alternative" like WCAG (probably with a requirement to be PD) in either case.

Under non PD definition the following provisions although OK as is, could be tweaked:
3-B to say 'presentation of' as in 3-A
3-F say text alternative rather than text equivalent
3-P use name and not text
3-AA clarify text presented to the user
5-B clarify text presented to the user

Under a PD definition
Authoring tool note needs tweaking.
Content definition needs tweaking
Contrast ratio definition needs tweaking
Large Scale text needs tweaking
Note in non-text needs fix.
Real time text and TTY definitions need tweaking
Video description definition needs tweaking
1-C needs exception for routers etc.
1-E needs fix on DRM clause
1-G needs fix (Gregg already proposed).
3-B needs fixes in "incidental" clause
3-G needs fixes in the Note, since its talking about data
3-N needs fix for link text not presented.
3-O eliminate redundancy


NB I'd prefer something like written form, rather than text or images of text; but not that bothered.

-----------------
Detail:

1. Note: Simple text editors that... [No requirement to be PD]

2. CAPTCHA tests often involve asking the user to type in text... [PD implied by 'user to type' and 3-U]

3. Captions (under discussion) [Captions are not normally PD, but as they are content, they need to made available because of 3-U]

4. Content ... including but not limited to: text, images,... [No implication of PD]

5. Contrast ratio. ...Text can be evaluated...Text to be rendered... [No implication of PD, in fact the opposite]

6. Label Text or other component with a text alternative...presented to the user [The 'presented to the user' brings it under 3-U]. {where label label is electronic content}

7. Large Scale Text - [needed for contrast, its a display feature, no implication of PD]

8. Non-text,[ clearly no requirement to be PD and in fact the use of 'text in the note would be wrong if text implied PD]

9. Real time text... the transmission of text wherein... [While 3-U would cover RTT presented to the user, it being electronic content, no requirement to be PD while in transmission]

10. TTY ... interactive text based... [3-U would cover if presented to the user, RTT being eContent]; ... for text-to-text communications...[No requirement to be PD in transmission]... text telephones....[no definition, but we could add a requirement to such a definition if necessary, however 6-B probably covers it]

11. Video Description ... and on-screen text... [refers not to PD text, but text in the video]

12. Closed - reference to Non-Text [not relevant]

13. 1-C Pass through ... pass real-time text communication... [not PD for routers etc]

14. 1-E ... Visual content that includes text and that is closed due to Digital Rights

15. Management... [ can't be PD by definition otherwise this sentence is incorrect]

16. 1-G Text Size ... required for product use and is provided in text is readable... [should not be restricted to PD] ... Note 1: Providing text in an accessible file... [qualifier 'accessible file' obviates need for text to be PD]... Note 3 [not relevant]... at least 12 points if...all other text... {not talking about eContent?]

17. 3-A Example...colored text... [Not talking about PD, but visual]

18. 3-B Presentation of text, and images of text [presentation brings it under 3-U]... incidental text in an image.. [not PD if its in an image]

19. 3-D... all text (and images of text) must have a contrast ratio... [this should mirror the wording in 3-B, presentation of...]

20. 3-F...text alternative... [We need to have a definition of text alternative, like WCAG, which may include the concept of PD]...text label... {if it is a label, it is presented to the user so 3-U applies). ---textual equivalents.. [should be 'text alternatives'], ... scanned image of text... [clearly not PD]

21. 3-G...text encoded in data...[no requirement to be PD here, only when presented where 3-U would apply]

22. 3-N ...link text... [3-U applies if the link is presented to the user, otherwise no requirement to be PD]

23. 3-O ...either programmatically determinable or available in text... [clearly implication is not PD, otherwise the explicit clause PD is redundant]

24. 3-P ...titled with text... [probably ought to say name, but its an example anyway the main text is clear that this needs to be PD]

25. 3-S [use in example, not required to be PD]

26. 3-NEW example only

27. 3-T visible text insertion...text area...[not defined, but 3-U would cover it]

28. 3-U explicitly requires what parts of text need to be PD

29. 3-AA the user in text... [ would require clarification that its PD or text presented to the user - probably the latter]

30. 4-A caption Processing ... as displayed text,... [presented to the user and electronic content, so 3-U applies]

31. 5-B ... a separate text description of the video... [Would require clarification that its PD or text presented to the user - probably the latter]

32. 6-A ..real time text... [ the requirement to actually present the text is in 6-B so 3-U would apply]


Sean Hayes
Media Acessibility Strategist
Accessibility Business Unit
Microsoft

Office: +44 118 909 5867,
Mobile: +44 7875 091385

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: 16 March 2008 03:37
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Definition Consensus Decision: Text

Hi Sean

My comments below marked GV:

Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
If Attachment is a mail.dat try http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University