You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In the nonvisual reading section the first possible output is "Has alt text". I wonder if this term is more familiar to developers than the average reader. WCAG uses "text alternatives", for example. Maybe we should consider using the same term, or at least spell out alternative in full?
The use of "read aloud" is also easy to confuse in this section. For example: "Readable in read aloud or dynamic braille"
It sounds like two adjectives for how to read braille (read aloud braille or dynamic braille). Switching positions would remove the potential for ambiguity ("Readable in dynamic braille or read aloud") or simply adding another "in" after the "or" ("Readable in read aloud or in dynamic braille").
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
WRT "alt text", we're also using this as a grouping term for alt text, long descriptions, and described math. It may make people think only the alt attribute for images is considered.
In the nonvisual reading section the first possible output is "Has alt text". I wonder if this term is more familiar to developers than the average reader. WCAG uses "text alternatives", for example. Maybe we should consider using the same term, or at least spell out alternative in full?
The use of "read aloud" is also easy to confuse in this section. For example: "Readable in read aloud or dynamic braille"
It sounds like two adjectives for how to read braille (read aloud braille or dynamic braille). Switching positions would remove the potential for ambiguity ("Readable in dynamic braille or read aloud") or simply adding another "in" after the "or" ("Readable in read aloud or in dynamic braille").
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: