W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?)

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 13:15:45 -0500
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20010104130439.00c24b00@localhost>
To: "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@acm.org>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Len,

no. not a typo.  In the rough reformulation I broadened it a bit.  I think 
that "navigating" a document is parallel to "interacting" with an 
application.  We need to cover both documents and applications (and 
combinations thereof). Therefore, for a user to interact with it according 
to their preferences, it needs to be device independent.  I do not see a 
conflict between the two statements.

Make sense?
--w

At 12:53 PM 1/4/01 , Leonard R. Kasday wrote:
>Is there a typo here? You say
>
>>"  Guideline 2 should say, "Design content that can be navigated and
>>   presented according to the needs and preferences of the user."
>
>
>But under "rough reformulation" Guideline 2 is "device independence"
>
>
>Len
>
>
>
>At 11:02 AM 1/4/01 -0500, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>>The proposal works for me.
>>
>>Charles McCN
>>
>>On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
>>
>>   Happy New Year!
>>
>>   This e-mail contains some reasoning about why, how, and where I ended 
>> up at
>>   a proposal for trimming our draft to 3 guidelines.  At the end is a 2
>>   question questionnaire that I would appreciate responses to.
>>
>>   There were several proposals about how to reword Guideline 2, as well as a
>>   couple threads about the myth of separating content from
>>   presentation.  I've been trying to synthesize all of this information into
>>   the new draft.
>>
>>   Another aspect I've been considering is ensuring that we answer the "who,
>>   what , why, where, how" questions.
>>
>>   If we look at Guideline 1, I think it generally states "what needs to be
>>   done."  The checkpoints under Guideline 1 state "how to do it" and the
>>   explanatory text of the checkpoints elaborate on the "how" as well as "why
>>   do it" and "what it means."  The techniques will further describe "how to
>>   do it" at a technology-specific level.
>>
>>   Therefore, in looking at Guideline 2 it currently reads:  "Separate 
>> content
>>   and structure from presentation."  This sounds more like a "how" than a
>>   "what."  I am also concerned about the myth of separating presentation 
>> from
>>   semantics, but I won't discuss that here.  I want to focus on the 
>> mechanics
>>   of the document.
>>
>>   We are also trying to create something that is easy to understand by
>>   less-technical or non-technical people.
>>
>>   With all of this in mind, it seems that Guideline 2 should describe what
>>   needs to happen to make the structure accessible.
>>
>>   The checkpoints describe how:
>>   1. Use markup languages according to specification
>>   2. Use style languages to control layout and presentation.
>>   3. Use markup or a data model to provide the logical structure of content.
>>
>>   What do these things accomplish?  We are asking the designer to expose the
>>   structure of the document.  What is structure?  Structure primarily
>>   describes relationships between different size "chunks" such as a heading
>>   to a paragraph,  n number of chunks that make up a chapter.  Hierarchy.
>>
>>   The "what" is that we need to know the logical order in which to navigate
>>   the relationships of the document or application.
>>
>>   While Guideline 1 says, "Design content that can be presented visually,
>>   auditorily or tactually, according to the needs and preferences of the
>>   user."  Guideline 2 should say, "Design content that can be navigated and
>>   presented according to the needs and preferences of the user."
>>
>>   Checkpoint 2.2 really falls under Guideline 1.  In fact, I think 
>> everything
>>   can fall into 3 basic categories:
>>
>>   Guideline 1: Presentation (combine with parts of 5 - device independence,
>>   and 6 - graceful transformation)
>>   Guideline 2: Interaction (combine with 4 - browsing and navigation and
>>   parts of 5)
>>   Guideline 3: Comprehension
>>
>>   In a sense this is separating presentation from structure, behavior, and
>>   content along the lines of the Model/View/Controller paradigm.
>>
>>   Therefore, here is a rough reformulation of WCAG 2.0.  I have combined 
>> some
>>   of our existing checkpoints, subsumed others.  I have not made a map
>>   between them.  The checkpoints are probably not technically complete.  The
>>   idea is to test the new structure not determine if the wording of each
>>   checkpoint is exactly as it should be.  If the structure seems ok, then I
>>   propose to take another pass at wording, adding back the examples and
>>   rationales.  This is just a sweep to look at the mechanics and 
>> structure of
>>   our document.
>>
>>   Guideline 1. Graceful transformation. Design content that can be presented
>>   visually, auditorally, or tactually, according to the needs and 
>> preferences
>>   of the user.
>>
>>   checkpoints:
>>   1.1. Provide a text equivalent for all non-text content
>>   1.2. Synchronize text equivalents with multimedia presentations 
>> (captions).
>>   1.3. Synchronize a description of essential visual info with multimedia
>>   presentations (auditory descriptions).
>>   1.4 Use style languages to control layout and presentation (create for
>>   specific devices if able).
>>   1.5 Ensure that content transforms gracefully (no matter what technology
>>   the user has or doesn't have, they are able to interact with your content)
>>
>>   Guideline 2. Device independence. Design content that can be interacted
>>   with without a mouse, only with a keyboard, only through voice, without
>>   voice, or with or without other devices, according to the needs and
>>   preferences of the user.
>>
>>   checkpoints:
>>   2.1 Use markup languages according to specification.
>>   2.2 Use markup or a data model to provide the logical structure of 
>> content.
>>   2.3 Minimize the use of or give the user control of content that may
>>   interfere with their ability to focus (animations, blinking text, 
>> scrolling
>>   banners, etc.)
>>   2.4 Give the user control of mechanisms that cause extreme changes in 
>> context
>>   2.5 Provide consistent interaction behaviors (navigation mechanisms,
>>   interface controls)
>>   2.6 Provide various search options
>>   2.7 Give users control over how long they can spend reading or interacting
>>   with content.
>>   2.8 Use device independent event handlers
>>   2.9 Design assistive-technology compatible user interfaces
>>
>>   Guideline 3. Comprehension. Design content that is easy to understand.
>>
>>   checkpoints:
>>   3.1 Use consistent presentation
>>   3.2 Emphasize structure through presentation, positioning and labels
>>   3.3 Divide information into smaller, more manageable chucnks
>>   3.4 Write clearly and simply
>>   3.5 Use graphics to illustrate concepts
>>   3.6 Summarize complex information
>>   3.7 Define key terms, abbreviations, acronyms, and specialized language
>>
>>
>>   Please complete the following questionnaire:
>>   Question 1: Does this proposal oversimplify the guidelines, creating
>>   something that is too general to understand?
>>   yes __
>>   no __
>>
>>   Question 2: should we proceed with a trimmed down structure similar to the
>>   one proposed in this e-mail in the next draft?
>>   yes __
>>   no __
>>
>>   reason:
>>
>>   </questionnaire>
>>   Thank you,
>>   --wendy
>>   --
>>   wendy a chisholm
>>   world wide web consortium
>>   web accessibility initiative
>>   madison, wi usa
>>   tel: +1 608 663 6346
>>   /--
>>
>>
>>--
>>Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
>>W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
>>Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
>>until 6 January 2001 at:
>>W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, 
>>France
>
>--
>Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D.
>Institute on Disabilities/UAP and Dept. of Electrical Engineering at 
>Temple University
>(215) 204-2247 (voice)                 (800) 750-7428 (TTY)
>http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday         mailto:kasday@acm.org
>
>Chair, W3C Web Accessibility Initiative Evaluation and Repair Tools Group
>http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/
>
>The WAVE web page accessibility evaluation assistant: 
>http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/wave/

--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
/--
Received on Thursday, 4 January 2001 13:11:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:09 GMT