Re: [niso-sts] Question regarding alternative and description text

["G. Ken Holman g.ken.holman@xxxxxxxxx" <niso-sts-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I like your concluding statement, but I think that should be the 
default that does not require an explicit declaration to be made.

That would be consistent with what I've posted as a comment:

https://groups.niso.org/higherlogic/ws/public/view_comment?comment_id=1245

Thank you for contributing to the discussion!

At 2023-11-13 22:40 +0000, Imsieke, Gerrit, le-tex 
gerrit.imsieke@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hi Ken,
>
> A stance that people may take is: If the described content, a 
> figure, an equation, etc., is normative, then the describing text is 
> normative, too, and must be authored with this normativeness in mind.
>
> But I don't think there is consensus about it. It would place such 
> an unrealistic onus on the descriptions -- they need to convey 
> exactly the same normative information that the figures or equations convey.
>
> This way, the descriptions might easily become very detailed, 
> lengthy, and hard to author. Plus, their equivalence with the 
> underlying object will be difficult to assess.
>
> But if, on the other hand, the descriptions are too superficial or 
> generic ("a diagram that contains labeled boxes and lines", "an 
> equation for determining the maximal tensile strain at a given 
> temperature"), the standard might not meet accessibility 
> requirements imposed by law.
>
> This is certainly a thing that the standing committee should 
> discuss, and they should get advice from a11y experts. I can imagine 
> that some best practice recommendations will emerge in the NISO STS 
> documentation, such as the recommendation to include a 
> meta-note[@content-type='cautionary'] that states that alt-text and 
> long-desc descriptions, even when attached to normative content, are 
> informative, despite best efforts to convey the underlying 
> information as precisely as feasible.
>
> Gerrit
>
>
> On 13.11.2023 23:01, G. Ken Holman g.ken.holman@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Thank you, Tommie!
> > As I am trying to provide guidance to my clients, I would 
> > appreciate bringing the question of the normative/non-normative 
> > properties for <alt-text> and <long-desc> to the committee.
> > Would you please point me to a procedures page where I can learn 
> > more regarding how to pose my question to them?
> > I have ideas for the PDF rendering, and I like Liam's comment 
> > regarding a helpful annex. So I'm feeling more comfortable now 
> > regarding what I might offer clients in regards to the rendering.
> > I'm left with the question of guidance regarding what information 
> > clients should and should not be putting into these "non-visual" constructs.
> > Thank you, again.
> > . . . . . . Ken
> > At 2023-11-13 21:19 +0000, Tommie Usdin btusdin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > Ken --
> > >
> > > I think you are asking two questions:
> > >    * in STS, is the content of the <alt-text> and <long-desc> 
> > > normative? and
> > >    * how should this content be handled when rendering STS 
> > > documents in PDF?
> > > I do not remember any conversations in the STS committees or in 
> > > the ISO work that preceded it about <alt-text> and <long-desc>. To 
> > > my recollection, these elements were adopted from JATS without 
> > > discussion. Since journal articles do not have normative and 
> > > non-normative content, JATS provides no guidance on the normative 
> > > status of <alt-text> and <long-desc>. This might be an interesting 
> > > question to pose to the STS standing committee.
> > >
> > > As for how <alt-text> and <long-desc> should be handled in PDF. I 
> > > see no reason standards documents should be different in this 
> > > respect from any other document. (I am told that including the 
> > > information needed for screen readers in PDF documents is fiddly 
> > > but possible. I have no first hand experience doing this.)
> > >
> > > -- Tommie
> > > ======================================================================
> > > B. Tommie Usdin mailto: 
> > > <mailto:btusdin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>btusdin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Mulberry Technologies, Inc. 
> > > <https://www.mulberrytech.com>https://www.mulberrytech.com
> > > Mulberry Technologies, Inc.: A Consultancy Specializing in XML for 
> > > Prose Documents
> > > ======================================================================
> > > On Nov 13, 2023, 3:21 PM -0500, G. Ken Holman 
> > > g.ken.holman@xxxxxxxxx <niso-sts-list-service@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, wrote:
> > > > Rereading the documentation, I think I found the key phrase I was 
> > > > looking for:
> > > >
> > > > "non-visual element"
> > > >
> > > > ... found for both elements. So, I guess that is definitive that I
> > > > have no rendering obligations outside of those used for assistive
> > > > access, and so I conclude it must not contain normative content.
> > > >
> > > > Although I am a bit worried when I read for <long-desc>:
> > > >
> > > > "... explains both the visual form of the chart
> > > > and significance of its findings."
> > > >
> > > > ... because I would think "significance" borders on being normative.
> > > > If the long description is to be assistive regarding an impairment
> > > > preventing the visualization of a graphic or table or formula, any
> > > > accompanying general text would/should already have normative
> > > > significance for all readers and, therefore, should not be in
> > > > assistive content that not all readers access.
> > > >
> > > > Anyway ... I have my direction.
> > > >
> > > > So I withdraw my question ... sorry for taking up the bandwidth.
> > > >
> > > > . . . . . . . . Ken
> > > >
> > > > https://www.niso-sts.org/TagLibrary/niso-sts-TL-1-0-html/element/alt-text.html
> > > > https://www.niso-sts.org/TagLibrary/niso-sts-TL-1-0-html/element/long-desc.html
> > > >
> > > > At 2023-11-13 19:59 +0000, G. Ken Holman g.ken.holman@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > > Fellow NISO STS list members,
> > > > >
> > > > > May I consider content found in <alt-text> and <long-description> as
> > > > > informative and not normative? I see nothing in the documentation
> > > > > that states one way or the other.
> > > > >
> > > > > My thought is that a PDF or paper rendering would (typically) hide
> > > > > this content from the reader. As a publisher of said content, do I
> > > > > have any obligation to render these elements visibly due to them
> > > > > possibly being normative?
> > > > >
> > > > > I can't think of why they would be normative. Important, yes, but
> > > > > authoring STS I wouldn't expect something normative to be stated in
> > > > > these elements, so I can make some assumptions when rendering.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank you for your thoughts.
> > > > >
> > > > > . . . . . Ken


--
Contact info, blog, articles, etc. http://www.CraneSoftwrights.com/j/ |
Check our site for free XML, XSLT, XSL-FO and UBL developer resources |
Streaming hands-on XSLT/XPath 2 training class @US$125 (5 hours free) |
Essays (UBL, XML, etc.) http://www.linkedin.com/today/author/gkholman |