Wording of example for WCAG SC 1.1.1

[nigelmegitt]

As I noted in #526 (comment) relating to the example in the section about meeting WCAG success criterion 1.1.1, I think the wording of this example could do with a bit of a rewrite.

Relative to this text:

 <aside class="example">Considering a subtitling and captioning practice where italics are used to indicate an off screen
        speaker context (for example a voice from a radio), an author can choose to include this functional information in the text
        equivalent; for example, by including the word "Radio: " before the image equivalent text. Note that images in an <a>Image
        Profile</a> <a>Document Instance</a> that are intended for use as <em>captions</em>, i.e. intended for a hard of hearing
        audience, might already include this functional information in the rendered text.</aside>

I'm not clear on whether "might already include this functional information" is referring to the italic styling or to the added word "Radio: ", and this seems important to this note. I think it is saying that the image might render text in italics but the text equivalent might include "Radio: " and not be in italics. Also should we not include ttm:role here?

Furthermore, it is not clear here why the author would not use tts:fontStyle="italic" in this example, i.e. something more like this for the second line:

        speaker context (for example a voice from a radio). As an alternative or addition to specifying <code>tts:fontStyle="italic"</code>, an author could choose to include this semantic information in the text

Instead of functional information in the rendered text., it would be clearer if it said presentation style in the rendered text..

As noted by @palemieux , the original text of the example came from a long thread culminating in the current text as proposed by @JLBirch.

[nigelmegitt]

I've just enjoyed re-reading the thread and believe I understand what was intended now.

Suggested alternatives:

1. Drop Image Profile from 1.3, and make 1.2 the last version of IMSC with Image Profile. Consequently this whole section could be removed (alongside many others).
2. Rewrite the note as follows:

 <aside class="example">Considering a subtitling and captioning practice where
        styling is used to convey meaning,
        for example using italics to indicate an off screen speaker context
        such as a voice from a radio,
        an author can choose to describe this sense in the text equivalent;
        in this example, by including the word "Radio: " before the image equivalent text.
        Note that images in an <a>Image Profile</a>
        <a>Document Instance</a> that are intended for use as <em>captions</em>,
        i.e. intended for a hard of hearing audience,
        might already include this styling in the rendered text.</aside>

[css-meeting-bot]

The Timed Text Working Group just discussed Wording of example for WCAG SC 1.1.1 w3c/imsc#551, and agreed to the following:

• SUMMARY: @nigelmegitt to open new issue for dropping Image Profile, and to open a pull request with proposed note text; consider industry messaging offline.

The full IRC log of that discussion

<nigel> Subtopic: Wording of example for WCAG SC 1.1.1 #551
<nigel> github: https://github.com//issues/551
<nigel> Nigel: I raised a suggestion to resolve the APA comment by removing Image Profile from IMSC in 1.3
<nigel> Pierre: I'm not philosophically opposed to this.
<nigel> .. I'm not sure it's the best thing, it would require time to inform the community,
<nigel> .. and I'm not sure we have the time this time around.
<nigel> .. That's why I'm not super excited.
<nigel> .. But for a later iteration, we should probably open an issue specifically on this,
<nigel> .. so that we remember it for v.next, but for now just stick to revising the note, which I think is great.
<nigel> Nigel: Ah, good that you liked the proposal.
<nigel> .. What kind of conversations do we need to have with the community about this?
<nigel> Pierre: We need to tell people we are stopping work on image profile.
<nigel> .. But we're also saying IMSC 1.3 might be a version we can never obsolete, because it
<nigel> .. is the last version supporting Image Profile.
<nigel> .. We have to remember that the last version of IMSC containing Image Profile should not be
<nigel> .. obsoleted because even though it might not be up to date for Text Profile, for Image Profile
<nigel> .. it might be the right onw.
<nigel> .. Or we split the documents.
<nigel> Gary: Is it possible to add a non-normative note to the Image Profile section saying we're considering
<nigel> .. removing it from future editions.
<nigel> Pierre: I found one of those notes in the current version of the document and we never acted on them.
<nigel> Gary: Maybe update the note to make it more prominent and follow through.
<nigel> .. That could be the signal to notify the community.
<nigel> Pierre: I think we should just talk about it.
<nigel> Gary: That too. It would be good to have it in the spec.
<nigel> .. An "official" documentation for it.
<nigel> Pierre: If it helps you, I'm happy to do it.
<nigel> s/onw/one
<nigel> .. I think we should post a message on the SMPTE, W3C, EBU, DASH-IF reflectors etc.
<nigel> Gary: Community outreach is more important.
<nigel> Pierre: If we get no feedback maybe we should do it now.
<nigel> Gary: I guess what are the timelines for IMSC 1.3 and how long do we want to wait.
<nigel> Pierre: Someone who really cares about it should respond quickly.
<nigel> .. If we compose a standard message that says we're considering no longer maintaining
<nigel> .. IMSC Image Profile and it will be forever the one in IMSC 1.2 or IMSC 1.3, let us know what you think.
<nigel> .. And we go to the various groups with that, and convey that message, and
<nigel> .. nobody complains and everyone supports, I think I'd be comfortable to remove it.
<nigel> .. But the second someone says they use it extensively and want to add something, then
<nigel> .. it sets a longer discussion going. But if nobody complains in a defined timeline, I'd be comfortable removing it.
<nigel> Nigel: My argument in favour of your proposal Pierre is that we have no proposals for any feature changes
<nigel> .. relating to Image Profile, but we have already diluted it somewhat compared to 1.2 by removing the
<nigel> .. HRM applicability. So anyone currently using Image Profile is subject to the HRM constraints,
<nigel> .. whereas if we keep Image Profile in 1.3 and publish it, then it isn't clear whether an Image Profile
<nigel> .. document meets the HRM constraints or not. So if there's industry support, removing Image profile
<nigel> .. now would be cleaner, and would make 1.2 the last version with Image Profile support.
<nigel> SUMMARY: @nigelmegitt to open new issue for dropping Image Profile, and to open a pull request with proposed note text; consider industry messaging offline.

[nigelmegitt]

#600 opened regarding #551 (comment) suggestion 1.