Re: Suggested rewording for Checkpoint 1.1

Graham Oliver writes:
 > 
 > Current wording.
 > 'For all non-text content that can be expressed in words, provide a text 
 > equivalent of the function or information the non-text content was intended 
 > to convey.'
 > 
 > Suggested rewording.
 > 'Whenever possible, provide text equivalents.'

I don't like "whenever possible" for several reasons. First, it is a
vague expression that need not be used. Secondly, and more
fundamentally, it can be interpreted as creating an open-ended
exception to the checkpoint: an implementor could use it to claim all
sorts of excuses for not implementing the checkpoint while still
purporting to have conformed to the guidelines.

I prefer Matt's latest wording. I do not favour simplicity at the
expense of precision, but if a simpler, yet equally precise
formulation can be found we should adopt it.