W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2003

Comments on new Working Draft - Guideline 4 & 5

From: <gian.sampsonwild@families.qld.gov.au>
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 17:31:40 +1000
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF6CC6E871.30FCA1F8-ON4A256D19.0027699F@families.qld.gov.au>

Hi,

I've had a read of the new working draft and have a number of comments.
Please note text in double quotation marks ( " ) are directly from the
document. My comments in bullets underneath.  Please note these are my
comments for Guideline 4 & 5 only (Guideline 1, 2 and 3 sent previously)

"Reviewer's Note: Since there has been concern about requirements at the
minimum level that would require content to be presented in a particular
way, this checkpoint has been worded in a way that requires authors to
"consider" a list of criteria and review their content with that list in
mind. Is this difference clear in comparison to other checkpoints?"
   I think we need further definition around "review...content with that
   list in mind"

Checkpoint 4.1 Write clearly.
You meet Checkpoint 4.1 at Level 2 if you review the content with items
such as these in mind:
...
- use of summaries to aid understanding
   I believe the use of summaries should be a minimum requirement

Checkpoint 4.2 Supplement text with non-text content.
Success criteria
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 4.2 at the Minimum Level if:
- authors have included non-text content to supplement text for key pages
or sections of the site where they felt it was appropriate.
   what are "key pages or sections of the site"?  are the pictures meant to
   supplement the content, or are they meant to supplement the structure?

Checkpoint 4.2 Supplement text with non-text content.
Note: Supplementing text with non-text (e.g. graphics, sound, SMELL, etc)
is useful for all users.
   Can we do that? - have been waiting and waiting for smellavision!!
   Please let me know!!  ; )

Checkpoint 4.2 Supplement text with non-text content.
Examples (informative)
Example 1: a description of a process.
- A page describes how to learn to play soccer. Each step in learning the
fundamentals of the game is illustrated with a photograph of a player doing
what is described in the text.
   None of the examples have included the use of graphics to aid in
   navigation, and so I suggest this example:
   "Example: identifying an area of the site.
   - A site caters to the elderly and people with disabilities.  The
   section of the site for the elderly has an image of an elderly couple in
   a rowboat above the navigation.  The section of the site for people with
   disabilities has an image of a person with a guide dog above the
   navigation"

Checkpoint 4.3 Annotate complex, abbreviated, or unfamiliar information
with summaries and definitions.
Success criteria
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 4.3 at the Minimum Level if:
- acronyms and abbreviations are defined the first time they appear.
   Defined through the code (as in <abbr title="World Wide Web
   Consortium">W3C</abbr>) or through the text (as in W3C [World Wide Web
   Consortium]) or both?
   Shouldn't header labels for tables be included in this success criteria
   as well?

"Checkpoint 4.3 Annotate complex, abbreviated, or unfamiliar information
with summaries and definitions.
The following are additional ideas for enhancing content along this
particular dimension:
- provide a definition or link (with the first occurrence) of phrases,
words, acronyms, and abbreviations specific to a particular community.
- provide a summary for relationships that may not be obvious from
analyzing the structure of a table but that may be apparent in a visual
rendering of the table.
- if contracted forms of words are used such that they are ambiguous,
provide semantic markup to make words unique and interpretable. "
   I think these additional ideas should be split up as to whether they
   apply to tables or abbreviations

Checkpoint 5.2 Ensure that technologies relied upon by the content are
declared and widely available.
Success criteria
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 5.2 at the Minimum Level if:
- a list of technologies and features, support for which is required in
order for the content to be operable, has been determined and is documented
in metadata and / or a policy statement associated with the content.
- the content is still usable when features not on the required list (for
example, scripting and stylesheets) are turned off or not supported.
   Does this mean that the site must be usable when scripting and style
   sheets are turned off, or that scripting and style sheets are examples
   of features that are not covered by this example?

"has been reviewed"
eg. the text-equivalent has been reviewed and is believed to fulfill the
same function as the author intended for the non-text content
   what does "has been reviewed" mean?  It could still be reviewed and be
   incorrect. Reviewed by the author?  Reviewed by someone other than the
   author? Reviewed by a user? Reviewed by someone with a disability?
   Reviewed by someone relying on that checkpoint to use the site?  Perhaps
   another option is to say "the text equivalent has been reviewed and
   compliance has been published on the web site", or perhaps documentation
   should be kept somewhere of how the checkpoint has been reviewed?

That's it from me.  Talk to you all at the teleconference Thursday/Friday.

Cheers,
Gian





=============================================
The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the
recipient(s) only. It may contain privileged or confidential
information. If you are not the intended recipient of this
e-mail, you must not copy, distribute or take any action
that relies on it.

If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the
sender immediately and then delete the message.

This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has
been checked for the presence of computer viruses.
Department of Families provide no guarantee that all possible viruses
have been detected and cleaned during this process.

=============================================
Received on Thursday, 1 May 2003 04:44:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:21 GMT