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

FW: Comments on new Working Draft - Guideline 4 & 5

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 16:16:00 -0500
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <026001c31026$e0880c80$ac17a8c0@TOSHIBATABLET>
 


Comments below marked  GV: 

 

 

 

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

GV: you mean they should consider using summaries?

 

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"

GV: Good example.  Lets add  This type of thing is very helpful.

 

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?

GV:  this is a good question.  I think either should be allowed.

   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

GV: we might just put a single word (or two) at the front of the items like:

- FOR TABLES - 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.

 

 

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?

GV:  good question.  Suggest rewording as:    

  - the content is still usable when features not on the required list GV:
specified by the author (for example, scripting and stylesheets) are turned
off or not supported.

 

 

"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?

GV:  I thought it was someplace - maybe in the appendix.  It was meant to
indicate anyone responsible for the site or the content.  But I think we are
trying to move away from this language if we can.  Not sure if we figured
out how though.

 

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

 

 

GV: Thanks for all the comments !

 

 

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 17:17:50 GMT

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