- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 10:44:13 -0400
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
- Message-id: <002a01c24ea1$60f64a50$210a640a@GV6101>
Sorry to be slow in posting but had to get all this straightened out.
In trying to resolve overlaps between checkpoints 1.3, 3.1 and 4.1, the
working group on the August 22 teleconference came to the conclusion
that all of the ideas and concepts of 3.1 were covered either by 1.3 or
4.1.
Basically, the concepts either had to do with making sure that any
structure that existed in a document was programmatically exposed (ala
1.3) or it dealt with adding structure to the document wherever it was
appropriate in order to make it more understandable (ala 4.1).
For a while, there was a question as to whether or not it was suggesting
that structure should be added in order to make the document more
navigable. However, closer examination revealed that it did not make
sense to add structure to a document where there was no logical
structure in order to make it more navigable (e.g. you wouldn't
arbitrarily insert chapters into something where there were no logical
chapters). If there were logical chapters, then they would be added
because it makes it easier to understand and you would programmatically
expose them so that they could also be used to navigate.
The group, therefore, proposes eliminating checkpoint 3.1 and making
some editorial changes to 1.3 and 4.1. Below are the new proposed 1.3
and 4.1 checkpoints, the text which has been moved from 3.1 is shown in
square brackets and is also blue in color.
[Begin Proposed Checkpoint 1.3 Revisions]
Checkpoint 1.3 Make all content and structure available independently of
presentation.
Success criteria
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.3 at the Minimum Level if:
1. any information that is conveyed through presentation formatting
is also provided in either text or structure.
2. the following can be derived programmatically (i.e. through
assistive technology compatible markup or data model) from the
content without interpreting presentation.
a. any hierarchical elements and relationships, such as
headings, paragraphs and lists
b. any non-hierarchical relationships between elements such as
cross-references and linkages, associations between labels
and controls, associations between cells and their headers,
etc.
c. Any relationships expressed spatially would be exposed
programmatically. (e.g. tables used for layout)
d. any emphasis
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.3 at Level 2 if:
1. [diagrams that have structure can be accessed by the user.]
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 1.3 at Level 3 if:
* (presently no additional criteria for this level.)
The following are additional ideas for enhancing a site along this
particular dimension:
* (presently no additional criteria for this level.)
Definitions (informative)
Content is the information or meaning and function.
Presentation is the rendering of the content and structure in a form
that can be sensed by the user.
Structure includes both hierarchical structure of the content and
non-hierarchical relationships such as cross-references, or the
correspondence between header and data cells in a table.
Benefits (informative)
* Separating content and structure from presentation allows Web
pages to be presented differently to meet the needs and
constraints of different users 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.
Examples (informative)
* Example 1: a multi-column document.
A document is marked up with headings, paragraphs and other
structural features. It is presented visually in three columns.
The markup that creates the columns is separate from the markup
that specifies the logical structure of the document.
* Example 2: a scrolling list of stock prices.
Current stock quotes are scrolled horizontally across the screen.
The data are separate from the methods used to scroll the text
across the page.
* Example 3: a 3-dimensional site map.
A custom user interface renders 3D visualizations of the pages on
a site and how they relate to one another from a data source. Any
hierarchical relationships, groupings, cross-references, etc.
would originate in the data source so that alternate interfaces
could be rendered (from the same source) that expose the
structure
of the site in an accessible form. (See also checkpoint 5.4)
* Example 4: a list that allows users to sort information on a page
according to preference.
A script allows a user to rearrange a categorical listing of
music
files by date, artist, genre, or file size. The script updates
both the structure and the presentation accordingly when
generating alternate views.
[End Proposed Checkpoint 1.3 Revisions]
[Begin Proposed Checkpoint 4.1 Revisions]
Checkpoint 4.1 Write as clearly and simply as is [appropriate /
possible]
for the purpose of the content.
Reviewer's Note: This item is under discussion. There is consensus
for
the existence of the checkpoint but not for the form of the success
criteria. We do not therefore have something for the draft at this
time. There is a list below of items that are being explored for
inclusion either as success criteria or as Advisory Recommendations.
We are also compiling a longer list (approx 50 items) of different
ideas that relate to this checkpoint.
This checkpoint is very difficult and the group is wrestling with a
number of problems. Among them:
1. It is very difficult to determine what makes writing clear and
simple for all topics.
2. Some content is derived from other sources and is copyrighted so
it cannot be altered.
3. Some materials or topics cannot be communicated accurately in
simple language.
4. There are some cases where the form is specific to the intent,
(poetry, exposition )
5. Since some people can not understand the content no matter how
simply it is written, it is not possible to make any content
accessible to everyone. Therefore, we are having difficulty
finding specific objective criteria that could be applied across
all types of content and sites.
Comments, suggestions and contributions to the discussion and work on
this topic are also solicited. Refer to the issues list for more
information.
Success criteria
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 4.1 at the Minimum Level if:
* (still under construction.)
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 4.1 at Level 2 if:
* (still under construction.)
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 4.1 at Level 3 if:
* (still under construction.)
The following are additional ideas for enhancing a site along this
particular dimension:
* (still under construction.)
Partial list of items being explored for inclusion as success criteria
or
advisory recommendations
1. content under site control is written as clearly and simply as
the
author feels [appropriate / possible] for the purpose of the
content.
2. a statement is provided on the site which asserts that those
responsible for the site have reviewed the materials on the site
and the content under their control is written as clearly and
simply as they feel is [appropriate / possible] for the purpose
of
the content.
3. summaries and/or simpler forms are provided for key pages or
sections of the site.
4. provide an outline or a summary for your document.
5. break up long paragraphs into shorter ones, with one idea per
paragraph.
6. break up long sentences into shorter ones.
7. provide accurate unique page titles.
8. ensure that headings and link text are unique and that they make
sense when read out of context.
9. provide definitions for any jargon or specialized terminology
used
in your document.
10. provide explanations of figurative, metaphorical, or idiomatic
uses of language (for example, 'haven't seen you in a coons age'
or 'the sight tore my heart out').
11. language should be used that your intended audience ought to be
familiar with.
12. when introducing new concepts or terms, they should be defined or
annotated in language that the audience is expected to be
familiar
with, or definitions or explanations should be linked to that
might be easier to understand.
[13. diagrams are constructed in a fashion so that they have
structure]
[14. break up text into logical paragraphs.]
[14. provide hierarchical sections and titles, particularly for longer
documents]
[15. reveal important non-hierarchical relationships, such as
cross-references, or the correspondence between header and data
cells in a table, so that they are represented unambiguously in
the markup or data model.
[16. divide very large works into sections and or chapters with
logical
labels.]
[Definitions (informative)
The structure of content represents changes in context. For example,
1. A book is divided into chapters, paragraphs, lists, etc. Chapter
titles help the reader anticipate the meaning of the following
paragraphs. Lists clearly indicate separate, yet related ideas.
All of these divisions help the reader anticipate changes in
context.
2. A bicycle is divided into wheels and a frame. Further, a wheel is
divided into a tire and a rim. In an image of the bicycle, one
group of circles and lines becomes "wheel" while another group
becomes "frame."]
Benefits (informative)
* All users, especially those with cognitive, learning, and/or
reading disabilities benefit from the use of clear and simple
writing. This should not discourage you from expressing complex
or
technical ideas.
* Using clear and simple language also benefits people whose first
language differs from your own, including those people who
communicate primarily in sign language.
[When the logical structure is provided in markup or a data model,
* Users with physical disabilities can use structure to more easily
jump between paragraphs, chapters, sections etc.
* Users with cognitive disabilities can use structure (chapter
titles, headers, etc.) to provide more context for the text that
follows them. They also provide warning of a change in context
and
reorient the user to the new focus.
* Users with blindness or low vision can jump from header to header
to get an overview or to more quickly "skim" to the section they
are interested in.
* Readers with low vision can sometimes (depending on display
technology) change how chapter titles and headers are displayed
to
make them more visible -and easier to use when skimming the
document.
* the content can be presented on a variety of devices because the
device software can choose only those elements of the content
that
it is able to display and display them in the most effective way
for that device.]
[Examples (informative)
* Example 1: a physics dissertation.
A dissertation contains well-defined sections such as "Abstract,"
"Table of Contents," "Chapter 1," etc. The pieces in each section
(paragraphs, subheadings, quotes) are denoted with structural
markup.
* Example 2: a scalable image of a bicycle.
Lines and a circle (spokes and rim) are grouped into a "wheel."
Lines in a triangle that attach to each wheel are grouped into a
"frame."
* Example 3: user interface.
User interface controls are divided into organized groups.]
[End Proposed Checkpoint 4.1 Revisions]
An additional proposal from the Aug. 22 telecon related to the removal
of checkpoint 3.1 was that the following success criteria:
[information is provided that would allow an assistive technology to
determine at least one logical, linear reading order]
be moved to proposed checkpoint 1.4 [was 3.2], at level 2. See Moving
Checkpoint 3.2 to Guideline 1 to Become New 1.4
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2002JulSep/0218.html)
for details.
Comments are solicited.
Thanks
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Human Factors
Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
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 Wednesday, 28 August 2002 10:44:45 UTC