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

PLAIN: Rewording of Guideline 1.3 plus success criteria, benefits, and examples

From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:47:25 -0600
Message-ID: <C46A1118E0262B47BD5C202DA2490D1A1DFBC8@MAIL02.austin.utexas.edu>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Plain language version of Guideline 1.3 plus success criteria, benefits,
and examples

 

This document contains a series of proposals for a "plain language_
rewording of WCAG 2.0 Checkpoint 1.3 with Success Criteria, Examples,
and Benefits

 

This is submitted in partial fulfillment of an action item taken by John
Slatin, Katie Haritos-Shay, and Doyle Burnett during a call in late
September or early October, to generate a plain-language version of WCAG
2.  

 

This message is partial in two ways: (1) It addresses only Guideline
(now Principle) 1, Checkpoint (now Guideline) 1.3, and the relevant
success criteria, examples, and benefits.  Other guidelines, etc., will
follow.  (2) It is not really "plain language," in the sense that this
text has not yet been compared to the 1500-word "special lexicon" used
by Voice of America (or other similar lexicons).  Thus it's actually
best understood as an attempt to simplify and clarify.  We're still
working on the formal plain language issues, but wanted to put this out
to start generating discussion.

 

Items labeled "Current wording" are taken from the September document
Reorg 4, available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2003/09/reorg4.html
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2003/09/reorg4.html> .  This document was
current at the time Katie and Doyle and I took on the action item to
attempt a plain language version.  Of course the proposed rewordings
will need to be correlated with later updates.

 

 


Current wording for checkpoint 1.3


1.3 [CORE] Information, functionality, and structure are separable from
presentation.


Proposed wording for Guideline 1.3


1.3 [CORE] Make information, structure, and functionality recognizable
even when users or user agents change the presentation format.


Current wording for Checkpoint 1.3 SC 1


1. the following can be derived programmatically (i.e. through a markup
or data model that is assistive technology compatible) from the content
without

requiring user interpretation of presentation.

A. any hierarchical elements and relationships, such as headings,
paragraphs and lists

B. any non-hierarchical relationships between elements such as
cross-references and linkages, associations between labels and controls,
associations between

cells and their headers, etc.

C. any emphasis


Proposed wording for Guideline 1.3 SC 1


Data models or markup are used to enable assistive technology to
recognize relationships among content elements, including (but not
limited to) those listed below:

A.  hierarchical elements and relationships, such as headings,
paragraphs and lists 

B.  non-hierarchical relationships between elements such as

*        cross-references and linkages, 

*        associations between labels and controls, 

*        associations between table cells and their headers [js note:
these should probably be listed as examples of hierarchical
relationships instead of non-hierarchical]

*        etc.

C.  emphasis on specific words and phrases

 


Current wording for Checkpoint 1.3 SC 2


2. any information presented through color is also available without
color (e.g. through context or markup or non-color dependent coding). [

I#317]


Proposed wording for Guideline 1.3 SC 2


2. any information presented through color is also available without
color, for example  through context, markup, or coding that does not
depend on color. 

I#317]


Current wording for Checkpoint 1.3 SC3


3. text content is not presented over a background image or pattern OR
the text is easily readable when the page is viewed in black and white
(no grayscale).


Proposed wording for Guideline 1.3 SC 3


3. text is not presented over a background image or pattern, or if a
background image or pattern is present then the text is readable when
the page is viewed in black and white. [js Doesn't this belong under
Extended? Seems nearly duplicate of 1.6]


Current wording for Best Practice Measures for Checkpoint 1.3


Best Practice Measures for Checkpoint 1.3

1. any information presented using color is also available without color
and without having to interpret markup.[

I#317]

2. any blinking content can be turned off.[

I#325]


Proposed wording for Best Practice Measures for Guideline 1.3


1. Information presented using color is also available without color ,
for example  through context or markup or coding that does not depend on
color. [I#317]

2.  blinking content can be turned off.[I#325]


Current wording for Benefits of Checkpoint 1.3


Benefits of Checkpoint 1.3 (Informative)

 

* Separating content and structure from presentation allows Web pages to
be presented differently to meet the needs and constraints of different
users without

losing any of the information or structure. For example, information can
be presented via speech or braille (text) that was originally intended
to be presented

visually.

* It can also facilitate automatic emphasis of structure or more
efficient navigation.

* All of these can benefit people with cognitive, physical, hearing, and
visual disabilities.


Proposed wording for Who Benefits from Guideline 1.3


*        People with cognitive and learning impairments; people with
visual impairments; and people with limited use of their hands benefit
from the ability to navigate by structural elements

*        People with cognitive and learning impairments; people with
visual impairments; people with limited use of their hands; and people
with hearing impairments benefit when information, structure, and
functionality are preserved in all presentation formats.

*        People with cognitive and learning impairments; people with
visual impairments; and people with hearing impairments benefit from the
ability to emphasize structural elements automatically in the form best
suited to their needs.


Current wording for Examples of Checkpoint 1.3


Examples of Checkpoint 1.3 (Informative)

 

* Example 1: a multi-column document.

 

A document is marked up with headings, paragraphs and other structural
features. It is presented visually in three columns. The markup that
creates the

columns is separate from the markup that specifies the logical structure
of the document.

* Example 2: a scrolling list of stock prices.

 

Current stock quotes are scrolled horizontally across the screen. The
data are separate from the methods used to scroll the text across the
page.

* Example 3: a 3-dimensional site map.

 

A custom user interface renders 3D visualizations of the pages on a site
and how they relate to one another from a data source. Any hierarchical
relationships,

groupings, cross-references, etc. would originate in the data source so
that alternate interfaces could be rendered (from the same source) that
expose

the structure of the site in an accessible form. (See also

checkpoint 4.3)

* Example 4: a list that allows users to sort information on a page
according to preference.

 

A script allows a user to rearrange a categorical listing of music files
by date, artist, genre, or file size. The script updates both the
structure and

the presentation accordingly when generating alternate views.

 


Proposed wording for Examples of Guideline 1.3


* Example 1: a multi-column document.

A document is marked up with headings, paragraphs, and other structural
features. It is presented visually in three columns. The markup that
creates the columns is separate from the markup that specifies the
structural features of the document.

 

* Example 2: a scrolling list of stock prices.

Current stock prices are scrolled horizontally across the screen. The
data are separate from the methods used to scroll the text across the
page.

 

* Example 3: a 3-dimensional site map.

A custom interface uses a data source to generate three-dimensional
visualizations of the pages on a site and how they relate to one
another. Hierarchical relationships, groupings, cross-references, etc.
are defined in the data source so that alternate interfaces that expose
the structure of the site in an accessible way could be rendered from
the same data source. (See also checkpoint 4.3)

 

* Example 4: a list that allows users to sort information on a page in
different ways.

A script allows a user to rearrange a listing of music files by date,
artist, genre, or file size. The script updates both the structure and
the presentation appropriately when generating alternate views.

 

 


"Good design is accessible design." 
Please note our new name and URL!
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/
<http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/> 


 

 
Received on Wednesday, 5 November 2003 11:47:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:26 GMT