W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 1999

Guideline 2.1 proposals

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 18:53:47 -0400 (EDT)
To: WAI AU Guidelines <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9906011851290.2065-100000@tux.w3.org>
The current checkpoints:

2.1.1 Use operating system and accessibility standards and conventions for
the platform(s) the tool runs on. [P1]

2.1.2 Ensure that user agent functionality offered by the tool (e.g., in a
preview mode) conforms to the W3C's User Agent Accessibility Guidelines[1].

2.1.3 Ensure the rendering used while authoring is independent of styles used
for the published document (e.g., the font size, letter and line spacing, and
text and background color, etc.). [P1]

2.1.4 Allow the author to display a textual equivalent of content while
editing. [P1]

2.1.5 For each element of a document, the properties of that element must be
accessible to the author. [P1]

2.1.6 Enable navigation and editing via the structure of the document. [P1]

2.1.7 Enable editing of the structure of the document. [P2]

I propose we:

remove 2.1.2 (redundant with 2.1.1), 2.1.3 (belongs in 2.6 perhaps? it's
about providing multiple views - the rest is in 2.1.5) and 2.1.4 (as noted in
previous email). I suggest we add a checkpoint - "make the tool accessible"
(with the techniques I suggested earlier), and add reading and editing to
2.1.5. Along with some slight edits, this is the new checkpoints I am

2.1.1. Make the tool accessible [P1]

2.1.2. Follow operating system conventions and guidelines [P1]

2.1.3. Allow the author to read and edit all properties of every element of
the document [P1]

2.1.4. Enable navigation and editing via the structure of the document P2]

2.1.5. Enable editing of the structure of the document [P2]

In addition, we remove 2.4.1 (redundant with the new 2.1.3) and we have a new
checkpoint in section 2.6:

Provide multiple views for editing [P3]
(this has been there before. It is a helpful thing to do, but I don't think
it rates a higher priority than that)

Charles McCN
Received on Tuesday, 1 June 1999 18:53:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:42 UTC