PLAIN: Proposed rewording for Guideline 2.4 with success criteria, best practices, benefits, and examples

Plain language version of Guideline 2.4 with success criteria, benefits,
and examples

 

This document contains a series of proposals for a "plain language_
rewording of WCAG 2.0 Guideline 2.4 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) 2, Checkpoint (now Guideline) 2.4, 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 2.4


2.4 [E5] Mechanisms have been added to facilitate orientation and
movement in content.


Proposed wording for Guideline 2.4


2.4 [E5] Make it easy for users to browse the resource, to know their
place in it, and to find information they need.

 


Current wording for Checkpoint 2.4, SC 1


Editorial Note: The CKW reorganization proposed that all of the items in
required be removed and proposed a rewording of the item in best
practice that addressed logical, linear reading order.  [I#441]

 

1. In documents greater than 50,000 words or sites larger than 50
perceived pages, at least one of the following is provided.

A. hierarchical

structure

mark up

B. Table of contents (or site map)

C. Alternate display orders (or alternate

site navigation mechanisms)


Proposed wording for Guideline 2.4, SC 1


Editorial Note: The CKW reorganization proposed that all of the items in
required be removed and proposed a rewording of the item in best
practice that addressed logical, linear reading order. [ I#441]

 

1. In documents containing more than 50,000 words or sites larger than
50 perceived pages, at least one of the following is provided.

A. Markup to identify hierarchical structure and other, non-hierarchical
relationships such as cross-references, internal links, etc.

B. Table of contents 

C. Site map

D. Alternate display orders 

E. Alternate site navigation mechanisms


Current wording for Checkpoint 2.4, SC2


2. Users are able to skip over large blocks of repetitive material,
navigational bars or other blocks of links that are greater than 7 when
reading with a synthesizer or navigating using keyboard. [I#323]


Proposed wording for Guideline 2.4, SC 2


2. Large blocks of material that are repeated on multiple pages, such as
navigation menus with more than 7 links, site banners, etc., can be
bypassed by people who use screen readers or who navigate via keyboard
or keyboard interface. 


Current wording for Best Practice Measures for Checkpoint 2.4


1. the content has been reviewed, taking into account the following
strategies for facilitating orientation and movement, applying them as
appropriate. A. breaking up text into logical paragraphs

B. providing hierarchical sections and titles, particularly for longer
documents

C. revealing important non-hierarchical relationships, such as
cross-references, or the correspondence between header and data cells in
a table, so that

they are represented unambiguously in the markup or data model

D. dividing very large works into sections and or chapters with logical
labels

E. others?

 

2. information is provided that would allow an assistive technology to
determine at least one logical, linear reading order.

3. diagrams are constructed in a fashion so that they have structure
that can be accessed by the user.

4. where possible, logical tab order has been created. [I#319]


Proposed wording for Best Practice Measures for Guideline 2.4


1. the content has been reviewed, taking into account the following
strategies for facilitating orientation and movement and applying them
as appropriate.

A. breaking up text into logical paragraphs

B. dividing documents, especially very long ones, into hierarchical
sections and subsections with clear and informative titles

C. Supplying a unique and informative title for each page or resource
that can be accessed independently (for example, from a Search Results
page)

D. revealing important non-hierarchical relationships, such as
cross-references, or the correspondence between header and data cells in
a data table, so that the relationships are represented unambiguously in
the markup [js 10/27: I don't understand the relationship between
"revealing" relationships and representing them in the markup. Who wo
what does the revealing, and how?]or data model

E. Others?

 

2. information is provided that would allow an assistive technology to
determine at least one logical sequence in which to read a document.

3. diagrams are constructed so that they have structure that users can
access. 

[js note: Does #3 belong somewhere under Principle 1, since it seems to
have more to do with making structure perceivable than making it
operable? Or should we revise this to bring out the operable
characteristics of the diagram?]

4.  logical tab order has been created where possible,. [I#319]


Current wording for Benefits of Checkpoint 2.4


* When the logical structure is provided in markup or a data model,

* Users with physical disabilities can use structure to more easily jump
between paragraphs, chapters, sections etc.

* Users with cognitive disabilities can use structure (chapter titles,
headers, etc.) to provide more context for the text that follows them.
They also

provide warning of a change in context and reorient the user to the new
focus.

* Users with blindness or low vision can jump from header to header to
get an overview or to more quickly "skim" to the section they are
interested in.

* Readers with low vision can sometimes (depending on display
technology) change how chapter titles and headers are displayed to make
them more visible

-and easier to use when skimming the document.

* the content can be presented on a variety of devices because the
device software can choose only those elements of the content that it is
able to display

and display them in the most effective way for that device.

* Providing different navigation mechanisms can provide a better match
between different people's skills, background knowledge, visual vs. text
orientation,

and the type of information they are seeking at the moment.

* Individuals with cognitive disabilities may find it easier to ask for
what they want than to deduce its location from categorical choices.

* Individuals with low vision or blindness may find search techniques
that fetch everything that relates to a topic of interest to be easier
than techniques

that require them to scan lists or pages for the items.


Proposed wording for Who benefits from Checkpoint 2.4 (Informative)


When the logical structure is provided in markup or a data model,

* Users with physical disabilities can use structure to more easily jump
between paragraphs, chapters, sections etc.

* Users with cognitive disabilities can use structure (chapter titles,
headers, etc.) to provide more context for the text that follows them. 

* Users with blindnessor low vision can jump from header to header to
get an overview or more quickly "skim" to the section they are
interested in.

* People with low vision can change how chapter titles and headers are
displayed to make them more visible and easier to use when skimming the
document. (refer to guideline 1.3)

* People who use a variety of user agents can access the content because
the user agent can choose only those elements of the content that it is
able to display and display those elements in the most effective way for
that user agent.

* People who have different ways of learning, and people with different
levels of knowledge or skill, benefit from alternative navigation
methods that help them find the resources they want.

 

* People with cognitive disabilities may find it easier to ask for what
they want than to deduce its location from categorical choices. 

[js note: Not clear which guideline or success criteria this one aligns
with. There's nothing in 2.4 or the success criteria about providing a
mechanism for requesting specific content]

 

* Individuals with low vision or blindness may find search techniques
that fetch everything that relates to a topic of interest to be easier
than techniques that require them to scan lists or pages. 

[js note: Again nothing in the language of 2.4 or the success criteria
talks about search engines. This could be an item in the list of things
of which at least one must be provided for long documents]


Current wording for Examples of Checkpoint 2.4


* Example 1: a physics dissertation.

 

A dissertation contains well-defined sections such as "Abstract," "Table
of Contents," "Chapter 1," etc. The pieces in each section (paragraphs,
subheadings, quotes) are denoted with structural markup.

 

* Example 2: a scalable image of a bicycle.

 

Lines and a circle (spokes and rim) are grouped into a "wheel." Lines in
a triangle that attach to each wheel are grouped into a "frame."

 

* Example 3: user interface.

 

User interface controls are divided into organized groups.


Proposed wording for Examples of Guideline 2.4  (Informative)


* Example 1: a dissertation.

 

A dissertation contains well-defined sections such as "Abstract," "Table
of Contents," "Chapter 1," etc. The pieces in each section (paragraphs,
subheadings, quotes) are denoted with structural markup. [js 10/27
Interesting choice of example. Many universities in the US now requires
that dissertations be submitted as PDFs but do not require use of the
tagged PDF format that supports accessibility.]

 

* Example 2: a scalable image of a bicycle.

 

Lines and a circle (spokes and rim) are grouped into a "wheel." Lines in
a triangle that attach to each wheel are grouped into a "frame." Screen
readers and other assistive technology report the names of the
individual elements or groups.

 

* Example 3: A user interface embedded in a Web page.

 

Interface controls are divided into organized groups; users can navigate
between controls within the groups and move from group to group. Users
with limited use of their hands are able to complete sections of the
form with a small number of keystrokes.

 

 

 

 


"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/>