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

3 Categories for WCAG checkpoints

From: <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 14:00:22 -0600
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Message-ID: <85256840.006E4424.00@d54mta08.raleigh.ibm.com>



The WCAG checkpoints could fall into one of three types of checking

Proposed rewrite:

    To "check for" an accessibility problem means that it is
    identified by the tool in at least one of the following ways:

     a) Where it is possible to identify a problem from syntax, the
        tool must automate this check. For example, check for the
        presence of the "alt" attribute on the HTML IMG element.

     b) Where it is possible to identify a problem mechanically but
        not directly from syntax, the tool should automate this
        check. For example, calculate whether two colors do not
        provide sufficient contrast when compared to user preferences.
        When the tool's calculations are best guesses (e.g.,
        linearization of a page), prompt the user to confirm the
        results.

     c) Otherwise, prompt the user to verify accessibility. For
       instance,
        if an image has an associated long description, ask the user
        to confirm that the description is appropriate for the
        image. Subtle, rather than extensive, prompting is more likely
        to be effective in encouraging the user to verify accessibility.

 - Ian


Those WCAG checkpoints that fit into a):
1.1

Those WCAG checkpoints that fit into b):
1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 2.2

Those WCAG checkpoints that fit into c):
1.1, 1.5, 2.1


Regards,
Phill Jenkins,
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 1999 15:04:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:43 UTC