- From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:59:24 -0400
- To: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
- CC: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Hi Tim, My comments in-line: Tim Boland wrote: > WCAG 2.0 Guideline 1.3 [1] contains the rationale (called "benefit" in > WCAG2.0) listed following, and also has two other points after > "benefits" as follows: "can also facilitate automatic emphasis of > structure or more efficient navigation, and all of these can benefit > people with cognitive, physical, hearing, and visual disabilities." > * > *Do we want to add these points to our "rationale"? Sure...how about: Rationale: Separating content and structure from presentation allows user interfaces of authoring tools to be presented differently to meet the needs and constraints of different authors without losing any of the information or structure. For example, information can be presented via speech or braille (text) that was originally intended to be presented visually. It can also facilitate automatic emphasis of structure or more efficient navigation. All of these can benefit authors with cognitive, physical, hearing, and visual disabilities. > Also, WCAG2.0 has success criteria at Levels 1, 2, and 3, for > this Guideline (wording is different from our success criteria language > below). Do we want to > consider the WCAG2.0 wording for consistency for our success criteria, > or if not > appropriate, explain why our wording would be different? 1. The main reasons is to fit the "must" structure that all of our success criteria share. 2. I combined the two WCAG success criteria that deal with colour since the split only seems to make sense with WCAG's multiple success criteria per guideline structure. > What priority is our new checkpoint? It doesn't have one yet, though I would lean towards saying it is P1. Any thoughts? Cheers, -Jan > > Thanks and best wishes > Tim Boland NIST > > [1] : http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#content-structure-separation > > >> ATAG Checkpoint A.1.?: Ensure that information, functionality, and >> structure can be separated from presentation. >> >> Rationale: Separating content and structure from presentation allows >> user interfaces of authoring tools to be presented differently to meet >> the needs and constraints of different authors without losing any of the >> information or structure. For example, information can be presented via >> speech or braille (text) that was originally intended to be presented >> visually. >> >> Success Criteria: >> >> - If information is conveyed by variations in the presentation of text >> (e.g. by the spatial location of text), then the information must also >> either be conveyed in text or be made available programmatically. >> >> - If information is conveyed by color, then the information must also be: >> + be conveyed in text or be made available programmatically, and >> + conveyed in a way that is visually evident when color is not available >> (e.g. by shape) >> >> - If content is structured (e.g. form controls grouped), then that >> structure must be made available programmatically. >> >> - If the sequence of content affects its meaning, then the sequencing >> information must be made available programmatically. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >> -- Jan Richards, M.Sc. User Interface Design Specialist Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC) Faculty of Information Studies University of Toronto Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca Web: http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca Phone: 416-946-7060 Fax: 416-971-2896
Received on Friday, 30 September 2005 15:00:15 UTC