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

proposal 3: checkpoint 3.3

From: lisa seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2003 08:21:59 +0200
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000101c35987$90acda10$ad00000a@patirsrv.patir.com>
This was a lot of work...
 
before folks jump on any wording issues or the details, please, let us
get a consensus on the concept -is this the way to go? is the direction
of the checkpoints a step forward? Also, please read the notes before
commenting
 
Also remember to comment if you do like the rewrite (one can hope)
 
 
on to the main....
 
Firstly, I think part of 3.3 can be incorporated into a core checkpoint
without unduly or overly  changing the content of the page...
The purpose of a core checkpoint will be to ensure that user agents can
provide assistance to the user, to summarize, simplify and aid
navigation.
 
 
Specifically we could require in a core checkpoint:
 
 
Provide assistance to enable the user to find and understand core
information.
 
criteria:
 
1, provide uniqueness of page titles 
 
2, provide headings and linked text that are unique and clear when read
out of context 
 
3,  markup of  key information that the user most typically requires
with structural markup -(note: this is  similar to1.3 [CORE] however we
are adding a requirement  to _identify_  important content - and then
incorporate it into structural mark up )
 
4,  when the content is more important then the writing style, clarify
Syntactic and Semantic ambiguity, (but not word ambiguity). -see end
notes

 

 

checkpoint 3.3 -E

The "review" criteria was added as a compromise position, between
allowing us to state some clear writing requirements and making it
practical. However in view of us now being able to make this an extended
checkpoint, we do not have to have the same concerns. If it is
inappropriate for this content to use short sentence - well then the
author can still claim accessibility, but just not to this checkpoint.
From the user perspective, this page is not accessible this audience if
certain clear and certain criteria are not met.  

 

checkpoint 3.3 - provide clear content



success criteria

1.	
All terms  used are available in a linked to, fully accessible
accessible simple language lexicon, or supplementary lexicon of topic
specific Jargon

2.	
A language structure is chosen to aid comprehension (such as active
voice in languages where this form helps convey information)

3.	
Strings of no more than three nouns are defined as a phrase in a linked
to lexicon

4.	
Sentences without lists do not exceed 25 words.

5.	
Do not use more then two conjunctions in a sentence or list item (unless
in  a sub list).

6.	
Paragraphs do not contain more then 7 sentences

7.	
Separate ideas are provided in a  separate paragraphs  

8.	
The key term or idea of each paragraph is easily identifiable
(techniques: through markup like em, or by "front loading")

9.	
Inclusion of non-text content to symbolize or replace text for key pages


10.	
Clarity of references are provided for  pronouns and anaphoric
expressions (these refer back to something already said in the text) 

1.	
example of potential ambiguity: "Scientists study monkeys. They eat
bananas." 

11.	
Conjunction forms and adverbs  are used correctly to make explicit the
relationship between phrases or parts of the text such as "and," "but,"
"furthermore," "not only"

12.	
Clarify the logic in the order and flow of information (for example
provide a summary, document map or flow diagram)

13.	
Provide all steps in  required actions  or in the explanation of
instructions 

14.	
Provide consistency in the use of names and labels 

a.	
clarify where the document: 

*	
addresses users 

*	
explains choices and options 

*	
labels options to get more information 

*	
instructs users how to modify selections in critical functions (such as
how to delete an item from a shopping cart) 

b.	
application of: 

*	
goal-action structure for menu prompts 

*	
default settings (and the ease in re-establishing them) 

*	
two-step "select and confirm" processes to reduce accidental selections
for critical functions 

*	
calculation assistance to reduce the need to calculate 

Best practices:



1.	care in the use of all-capital letters where normal sentence
case might increase comprehension 
2.	providing support for conversion into symbolic languages 
3.	testing with potential with cognitive disabilities  users for
ease of accessibility 
4.	use a well known lexicon.

 
background and notes:
 
Clarify the logic in the order and flow of information  - this provides
a clear testable form that will encourage the author to use  logic and
order in the flow of information, whilst providing a summary.

Syntactic ambiguity occurs when there is more than one possible
syntactic 
parses for a grammatical sentence. For example, the sentence Fasten the 
assembly with the lever. This may be either an instruction to fasten the

assembly using a lever, or an instruction to fasten the assembly, which
has a 
lever attached to it. With the prepositional phrase with the lever can
be 
attached to the verb or to the noun phrase object. However often a
Syntactic 
ambiguity is caused by a word ambiguity- in our example the word with is

ambiguous. With  could mean using or connected to. 
Semantic ambiguity
Semantic ambiguity occurs when other knowledge sources are required to 
determine the meaning of a sentence.  For example, the sentence Start
the 
engine and keep it running, the fact that it refers to the engine is not

inferable from the single clause keep it running. The ambiguity is
caused by 
the difficulty in resolving the pronoun. 
were the context can not decipher the word

 

All the best

Lisa Seeman

 

Visit us at the  <http://www.ubaccess.com/> UB Access website

UB Access - Moving internet accessibility

 

 
Received on Sunday, 3 August 2003 02:29:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:25 GMT