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.