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

4.3 - descrambled

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 00:12:05 -0500
To: "GLWAI Guidelines WG \(GL - WAI Guidelines WG\)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001501c123b6$7f0a8360$066fa8c0@750>
I would like to float something to the list.

While going through the guidelines in grammar and cleaning it up I
discovered that with 4.3 we had requirements in the benefits section and
not all the criteria are criteria.

For example the benefits section reads

Benefits
Ensure that the user interface follows principles of accessible design:
device-independent access to functionality, keyboard operability,
self-voicing, etc. When an embedded object has its "own interface", the
interface -- like the interface to the browser itself -- must be
accessible. If the interface of the embedded object cannot be made
accessible, an alternative accessible solution must be provided

These are not benefits, but requirements.

And the Success criteria reads

Success criteria
You will have successfully designed an assistive-technology compatible
user interface if you:

1-  use accessibility conventions of the markup or programming language
you are using (API's or specific markup),

2-  have tested the interface using a variety of assistive technologies
and preferably real people with disabilities who use assistive
technologies to determine that assistive technologies can access all
information on the page or hidden within the page,

3- design an application that runs within a browser that conforms to the
User Agent Accessibility Guidelines.


Criteria # 1 and 3 are good.

while #2 is a good thing to do, it is not required in order to conform.
In addition it is not practical for most web designers.  Very few people
have or can afford to have the variety of assistive technologies that
would be required to do this meaningfully.    It is good for large
professional shops but should not be required for all.

I suggest that this requirement be moved down to discussion and
rewritten as

"For large professionally developed sites, it is good to have the site
tested using a variety of assistive technologies, and preferably real
people with disabilities who use assistive technologies, to determine
that assistive technologies can access all information on the page or
hidden within the page"s

and the requirements in the benefits section should be moved up.

This would give us a 4.3 that looks like

----------------

Checkpoint 4.3 Design user interfaces compatible with assistive
technology

Success criteria

You will have successfully designed an assistive-technology compatible
user interface if you:

1- have used accessibility conventions of the markup or programming
language you are using (API's or specific markup),

2- have designed an application that runs within a browser that conforms
to the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines.

3- have provided device-independent access to functionality

4- if an embedded object has its "own interface", the interface follows
UAAG 1.0.   If the interface of the embedded object cannot be made
accessible, an alternative accessible solution must be provided


Note: (informative) It is very helpful to test interfaces using a
variety of assistive technologies and preferably real people with
disabilities who use assistive technologies to determine that assistive
technologies can access all information on the page or hidden within the
page.


{ there is not BENEFITS section to 4.3 after the edit.}


------------------------

Comments?
This is the only checkpoint that really seems all scrambled and we
didn't clear up in discussions.

-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Human Factors
Dept of Ind. Engr. - U of Wis.
Director - Trace R & D Center
Gv@trace.wisc.edu <mailto:Gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <http://trace.wisc.edu/>
FAX 608/262-8848 
For a list of our listserves send “lists” to listproc@trace.wisc.edu
<mailto:listproc@trace.wisc.edu>
Received on Monday, 13 August 2001 01:19:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:11 GMT