RE: What needs to be completed for Guideline 1.3

Thanks so much, Becky! This is extremely helpful.

I've made some preliminary comments below, marked with [js].

I know everyone's trying to get some vacation time in (and some people
are actually away from their computers!!<grin>), but we have a time
crunch since GL 1.3 is on the agenda for the 5 January call. So I will
make suggestions wherever I can for discussion at our next Team B call
(time to be announced).

John

"Good design is accessible design."

Dr. John M. Slatin, Director 
Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin 
FAC 248C 
1 University Station G9600 
Austin, TX 78712 
ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524 
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu 
Web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility 



-----Original Message-----
From: public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Becky Gibson
Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 2:14 PM
To: public-wcag-teamb@w3.org
Subject: What needs to be completed for Guideline 1.3



I went through Guideline 1.3 and created a list of what I think needs to

be completed for each Success Criterion.  Since the how to meet
documents 
have been accepted by the working group I did not review the list of 
sufficient techniques for each success criterion.  The format of this 
document is not readily usable so I will be trying to create it into a 
table for easier reading.  These are just my proposals to get us started
- 
please comment!

There is one issue, 1605, which applies to the Guideline text.  Here is 
the information Christophe provided in his recent 1.3 issue summary:
<Christophe> 1605. title of Guideline 1.3* Reviewer states that the
success criteria 
addresses separation of information and presentation, but not 
functionality, so "functionality" can be deleted from the guideline
text.
* True, the success criteria do not mention functionality. Separation of

functionality from structure and presentation sounds like "Unobtrusive 
JavaScript" (http://www.onlinetools.org/articles/unobtrusivejavascript/,

http://www.bobbyvandersluis.com/articles/unobtrusiveshowhide.php, 
http://adactio.com/atmedia2005/, http://www.sitepoint.com/books/dhtml1/,

http://domscripting.com/, etcetera). We could try to extract some 
technology-independent functional outcomes from these
technology-specific 
techniques, or consider deleting "functionality" from the guideline
text. </Christophe>

[js] I think we can safely propose deleting the word "functionality"
from the Guideline text. I tried to come up with a SC as Christophe
suggests. But I couldn't come up with anything that wasn't already
addressed by SC 2.1.1 (operable via keyboard interface) or GL 4.1
(compatible with AT) or GL 4.2 (accessible alternatives). 



Another issue which affect more than one success criteria is 1309 which 
has concerns about the definition of programmatically determined.  While

the definition has changed since this issue was submitted, there has
been 
recent discussion about replacing the term programmatically determined 
with its definition.  This was discussed at the December 8, 2005 
teleconference and Gian and David took an action item. 
ACTION: Gian and David to cover issues around programmatically
determined, 
to work on the term and the definition [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2005/12/08-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01]. 

[js] I'll follow up on this. The issue affects a number of SC that Team
B will be working on under GL 2.4, 3.1, and 4.1, so it's a big one for
us and for the WG as a whole.
 
Success Criterion 1.3.1 - Perceivable structures within the content can
be 
programmatically determined 
Issues: #1309 (general issue for GL 1.3) 
[js] See previous note on 1309.
no category 1 issues which are specific to 1.3.1

Techniques:  There are three proposed general techniques but since the 
1.3.1 relies on a combination of techniques which are not linked with
AND, 
I believe that we need only one of these general techniques completed. 
There are several completed HTML and CSS techniques so we do not need 
further work on these before last call.

Actions: 
1) Complete one general technique.  I propose the one about simple text 
formatting,  Using standard text formatting conventions to allow
structure 
in a simple text document to be programmatically determined, since I
think 
it will be the most useful. 
[js] I think this is a good idea. Will someone volunteer to do this one
asap?
2) Determine how to complete the general technique that suggests  using 
one or more the technology specific techniques.  Do we need an actual 
technique document for this?  Can it be a generic template that is used 
for all of the success criteria that have this same concept of referring

to technology specific techniques?
[js] The answer to this question affects the work of all 3 teams.
Personally I would like to be able to handle this in "boilerplate" text
at the beginning of the Techniques section in the How to Meet docs so we
don't require our readers to follow a link to a page that contains only
generic content. (Of course this doesn't work if the link points to
information about how a specific combination of techniques works to to
satisfy a specific SC.)


Success Criterion 1.3.2 - When information is conveyed by color, the
color 
can be programmatically determined or the information is also conveyed 
through another means that does not depend on the user's ability to 
differentiate colors 
Issues:  #1309 (general issue for GL 1.3) 
#1607 and 1608 - Yvette and Gregg took an action item at the December 15

meeting that should address both issues. ACTION:  Yvette and Gregg to 
review 1.3.2 and 1.3.4 to address programmatically determined, 
guaranteeing visual access at level 2 and making the working consistent.

[recorded in
http://www.w3.org/2005/12/15-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action04] 

Techniques: Several proposed general techniques for three situations - 
none completed; no HTML techniques, 1 completed CSS technique

Actions:
1) Work with Yvette and Gregg for resolution of issues 1607 and 1608-
this 
may result in the proposal for new success criterion text. Should get
this 
resolved before working on the techniques since it may affect the 
techniques. 
[js] I agree. I'll send a note to Greg and Yvette.
2) create general technique for situation A.  There is a choice of 
techniques to create. Suggest either Ensuring that color encoded 
information is also available in text (a description).  or Including a 
character cue whenever color cues are used (e.g. asterisk next to red 
items) since these are also sufficient techniques for 1.3.4. But, Using 
text and text formatting (e.g. Unicode text with color styling) AND
Using 
the same colored text in the legend or instructions introducing the use
of 
color are probably the most appropriate. 
[js]I suggest completing the first one,  about ensuring that
color-encoded information is also available in text. We could use the
one about text and text formatting for SC 1.3.3 (variations in
presentation of text ).
3) create general technique for situation B  - Using color and pattern  
[js] Can someone volunteer for this one?
4) create general technique for situation C -  Using features of the 
technology to ensure that color attributes are available via the 
accessibility API. 
[js] Again need a volunteer. 
 


Success Criterion 1.3.3 - Information that is conveyed by variations in 
presentation of text is also conveyed in text or the variations in 
presentation of text can be programmatically determined. 
Issues: 
#1766. Missing glossary entries - variations in presentation of text 
should be defined

Techniques: Two proposed general techniques; Two completed HTML
techniques

Actions:
1) #Issue 1766 - determine if definition of phrase "variations in 
presentation" is needed. If so, draft definition. Note that there is a 
definition of presentation.
2) Since there are two sufficient HTML techniques I don't think there is

additional technique work required.  But,  suggest completing the one
that 
 suggests that using technology specific techniques is sufficient to
meet 
the guideline.  This should be completed as part of 1.3.1 so we should 
just need to make sure it is linked properly to this success criterion.
[js] Agree.

Success Criterion 1.3.4 - Any information that is conveyed by color is 
visually evident when color is not available. 
Issues: #1607 and 1608 which also affect 1.3.2
Techniques: Three proposed  general techniques but all are also used in 
1.3.2. No proposed or completed  HTML or CSS techniques. 
Actions:
1) Work with Yvette and Gregg for resolution of issues 1607 and 1608-
this 
may result in the proposal for new success criterion text. This should
be 
completed first since it may affect the techniques. 
[js] As noted under 1.3.2, I'll follow up with Gregg and Yvette.
2) Link to the general technique that was created for 1.3.2 situation A 
3) Link to general technique that was created for 1.3.2 Situation B.
 [js] This may be affected by any proposal from Gregg and Yvette.

Success Criterion 1.3.5 - When content is arranged in a sequence that 
affects its meaning, that sequence can be programmatically determined. 
Issues: 
#1309 (general issue for GL 1.3)
#1767 and 1789 which suggest that this SC should be at a higher level

Techniques: Two proposed general techniques - sufficiency requires two.
No 
proposed or completed HTML techniques. One  proposed CSS Technique
Actions:
1) create general technique, Including meaning-critical sequences in the

programmatically determined reading order 
2) create general technique, preserving meaning-critical sequences in 
alternate presentations. 
[js] I suggest that we use the examples in How to Meet (and possibly in
the 30 June draft of General Techniques for GL 2.4) as the basis for
writing these general techniques. Is anyone available to work on this?

3) research issue of correct priority level and propose resolution for 
1767 and 1789.
[js] Agree. I'll take this as an action item.

Success Criterion 1.3.6 - Information required to understand and operate

content does not rely on shape, size, visual location, or orientation of

components. 
Issues:  No category 1 issues which are specific to 1.3.6
Techniques: Two proposed general techniques - sufficiency requires one.
No 
proposed or existing HTML or CSS techniques. 
Actions:
1) create one of the two general techniques:  Providing textual 
identification of items that otherwise rely only on shape and/or
position 
to be understood.  or For information that is identified by shape or 
position also identify it by characteristics that are programmatically 
determined. [js] I suggest the first one-- likely to be more commonly
used?





Becky Gibson
Web Accessibility Architect
                                                       
IBM Emerging Internet Technologies
5 Technology Park Drive
Westford, MA 01886
Voice: 978 399-6101; t/l 333-6101
Email: gibsonb@us.ibm.com

Received on Tuesday, 27 December 2005 17:21:22 UTC