W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2002

WCAG checkpoints and success criteria affecting design of technologies

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 17:34:20 +1000
Message-ID: <15770.41340.424723.958321@jdc.local>
To: Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

For purposes of checkpoint 5.3, I took an action item to examine which
checkpoints and success criteria created requirements that would
impose constraints on the combination of technologies that can be used
in implementing the guidelines.

Checkpoint 1.1, success criterion 1: the text equivalent is explicitly
associated with the non-text content (e.g., in markup or perhaps
metadata).

Checkpoint 1.2: the technologies must be able to present media
equivalents, and synchronize them.

Checkpoint 1.3: The combination of technologies must allow the logical
structure of content to be represented independently of presentation.
Whether this is possible will depend, obviously, on the combined
impact of the nature of the technology and the type of content
involved.

Checkpoint 1.4: In effect, this requires styling: the ability for the
author to specify one or more presentations of the content.

Checkpoint 1.6. Support for Unicode (or Unicode mapping) is required,
as is language identification (level 2, SC1) and acronym/abbreviation
identification (SC2).

Checkpoint 2.1: Just what the checkpoint says, the technology must
support the possibility of using character input alone. At level 2
(SC1), abstract event handlers must be supported, if the technology
offers a choice of event handlers.

Checkpoint 2.2, the requirement here pertains to the user agent(s)
rather than the formats/protocols/API's, I suspect, so I don't think
there is actually a requirement here.

Checkpoint 2.3, same as per 2.2 above: flicker is really a user agent
issue, though it might be possible to provide support in graphic/animation
formats to control it - I don't know.

Checkpoint 3.1, requires that the structural components listed in the
success criteria (at each level) be available to the extent that they
are applicable to the content.

Checkpoint 3.2: doesn't appear to require anything more than hypertext
linking.

Checkpoint 3.3, requires that the author be able to specify
presentations (as in checkpoint 1.4).

Checkpoint 3.4, I don't think there are any technological
requirements here.

Checkpoint 3.5, doesn't appear to require anything except standard
user interface features, though at level 3 a "selection-from-a-list"
mechanism must be provided.

Checkpoint 4.1, requires support for text content, which is obviously
also required elsewhere (e.g., checkpoint 1.1).

Checkpoint 4.3, note that the markup/format requirements are actually
under checkpoints 1.3 and 1.6, so that checkpoint 4.3 doesn't impose
any additional requirements on the technology.

Guideline 5 doesn't place any further requirements on the technologies
used, except of course in checkpoints 5.3 and 5.4. 5.4 requires that
custom interfaces be able to comply with UAAG 1.0.

I think that covers it. Most of the items, as I expected, are
concentrated under guideline 1.
Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2002 03:34:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:20 GMT