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

RE: [techs] proposal to replace use of "rules"

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:13:04 -0500
Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20030128155332.02442e50@localhost>
To: gv@trace.wisc.edu, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

Here's a tangent...but please hear me out.  There are likely holes in the 
proposal, but perhaps we can find a nugget of something useful.

I've recently been working on the comments received about Checkpoint 1.3 
(Make all content and structure available independently of presentation). 
This checkpoint combines a variety of WCAG 1.0 checkpoints that lean 
heavily towards HTML.  e.g.:
3.1 When an appropriate markup language exists, use markup rather than 
images to convey information. [Priority 2]
3.3 Use style sheets to control layout and presentation. [Priority 2]
3.5 Use header elements to convey document structure and use them according 
to specification. [Priority 2]
3.6 Mark up lists and list items properly. [Priority 2]
3.7 Mark up quotations. Do not use quotation markup for formatting effects 
such as indentation. [Priority 2]
5.1 For data tables, identify row and column headers. [Priority 1]
5.2 For data tables that have two or more logical levels of row or column 
headers, use markup to associate data cells and header cells. [Priority 1]
etc. etc.

Thus, I'm wondering, "What if we moved the success criteria to the 
technology-specific documents?"  Here's an idea of what it might look like 
at each of the layers:

In the Guidelines/Checkpoints we might have:
Checkpoint 1.3 Make all content and structure available independently of 
presentation

[link to] technology-specific success criteria

Benefits
...

Examples
...

Definitions
...
===

In a separate gateway document (that either exists statically or is 
generated based on user preference):

Technology-specific success criteria

Checkpoint 1.3 Make all content and structure available independently of 
presentation

[link to] HTML success criteria
[link to] SVG success criteria
etc.etc.

===

In an HTML-specifics "checklist":

HTML Techniques for WCAG 2.0

Checkpoint 1.3 Make all content and structure available independently of 
presentation

Minimum level success criteria:
HTML 1.3-1a For data tables, identify row and column headers. [link to] 
techniques for 1.3-1a
HTML 1.3-1b For data tables that have two or more logical levels of row or 
column headers, use markup to associate data cells and header cells. [link 
to] techniques for 1.3-1b

Level 2 success criteria:
HTML 1.3-2a When an appropriate markup language exists, use markup rather 
than images to convey information. [link to] techniques for 1.3-2a

Level 3 success criteria
HTML 1.3-3a Provide summaries for tables. [link to] techniques for 1.3-3a

Just a thought...
--wendy

At 03:21 PM 1/28/2003, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:

>What I'm proposing is that a technique is a specific strategy (e.g., "Use 
>the title element to provide a unique title for a page") and that we 
>provide supplementary information for that technique (e.g., examples, 
>descriptions, etc.).
>
>Thus, a checklist is list of techniques.   A checklist does not contain 
>the supplementary information for that technique.
>--wendy
>
>At 02:53 PM 1/28/2003, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>>That works ok for the techniques doc,  but for the checklists we need
>>checklist items.
>>
>>There may be 3 or 5 techniques for a success criteria.   To meet the
>>criteria you would not need to do all 5.  but you may have to do one of
>>them.  Or two of them. Or some combination or another.
>>
>>In order for us to have a checklist, there will need to be very specific
>>checklist items.  And these would be different from techniques which is a
>>much broader category of ideas, strategies, techniques, options etc.
>>
>>So I think we still need to find the word for those "things"
>>
>>Best I have heard so far is   Technology Specific Checklist Items or  TSC
>>Items.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Gregg
>>
>>  -- ------------------------------
>>Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
>>Director - Trace R & D Center
>>University of Wisconsin-Madison
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
>>Of Wendy A Chisholm
>>Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 12:02 PM
>>To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>>Subject: [techs] proposal to replace use of "rules"
>>
>>
>>Hello,
>>
>>A while ago (january 2002?), when we began making the techniques documents
>>more testable we used the phrase "rules" for the testable statements.  For
>>a reminder of what this looks like, refer to the HTML Techniques [1]. We
>>didn't want to use "checkpoint" or "criterion" since we wanted to
>>distinguish the technology-specifics from the general guidelines and
>>checkpoints.
>>
>>However, there are many acknowledged issues with the term "rule."  e.g., it
>>could be confused with the 508 rules, it may be interpreted as being too
>>prescriptive. etc.  Thus, to continue the discussion about what term to use
>>instead, here is a proposal.  First, at the top level we currently have:
>>Guidelines which are made up of checkpoints
>>Checkpoints which are made up of success criteria
>>success criteria
>>
>>I propose that at the technology-specific level we have:
>>(one or many) techniques that show how to meet a top-level success criterion
>>a technique is a combination of:
>>- the technique (e.g., "Use the meta element to...")
>>- examples
>>- descriptions
>>- etc. (all the other stuff from the schema and techniques requirements)
>>
>>for those of you interested in the schema, i think we can continue to use
>>the element "rule" but when we generate documents from the xml we do
>>something along the following:
>>
>>====
>>TITLE: the document title
>>
>>Techniques:
>>Use the TITLE element to describe the document.
>>====
>>
>>Basically, replace "Rules" with "Techniques."
>>
>>--wendy
>>
>>[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/wcagtech020320.html
>>
>>--
>>wendy a chisholm
>>world wide web consortium
>>web accessibility initiative
>>http://www.w3.org/WAI/
>>/--
>
>--
>wendy a chisholm
>world wide web consortium
>web accessibility initiative
>http://www.w3.org/WAI/
>/--

-- 
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
http://www.w3.org/WAI/
/-- 
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2003 16:13:12 GMT

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