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

PLAIN: Proposed rewording for guideline 2.5 with success criteria, best practices, benefits, and examples

From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 10:35:39 -0600
Message-ID: <C46A1118E0262B47BD5C202DA2490D1A1DFBEF@MAIL02.austin.utexas.edu>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Plain language version of Guideline 2.5 with success criteria, benefits,
and examples

 

This document contains a series of proposals for a "plain language_
rewording of WCAG 2.0 Guideline 2.5 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) 2.5, 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 2.5


2.5 [E6] Methods are provided to minimize error and provide graceful
recovery.


Proposed wording for Guideline 2.5


2.5 [E6] Help users avoid mistakes and make it easy to correct them.


Current wording for Checkpoint 2.5, SC 1


Editorial Note: The CKW proposal suggested that this required success
criterion be combined with one of the best practice items and that
another best practice item be moved up. [ I#440]

 

1. if an error is detected, feedback is provided to the user identifying
the error (in an accessible form that meets core checkpoints).


Proposed wording for Guideline 2.5, SC 1


Editorial Note: The CKW proposal suggested that this required success
criterion be combined with one of the best practice items and that
another best practice item be moved up.  [I#440]

 

1. Information that is given to users about mistakes or problems
conforms to these guidelines.


Current wording for Best Practice Measures for Checkpoint 2.5


1. where possible, the user is allowed to select from a list of options
as well as to generate input text directly

2. errors are identified specifically and suggestions for correction are
provided where possible

3. checks for misspelled words are applied and correct spellings are
suggested when text entry is required.

4. where consequences are significant and time-response is not
important, one of the following is true

A. actions are reversible

B. where not reversible, actions are checked for errors in advance

C. where not reversible, and not checkable, a confirmation is asked
before acceptance


Proposed wording for Best Practice Measures for Guideline 2.5


1. Users are allowed to select from a list of options as well as to
enter text directly

2. errors are described and instructions or suggestions for correction
are provided

3. checks for misspelled words are applied and correct spellings are
suggested when text entry is required.

4. where consequences are significant and time-response is not
important, one of the following is true

List of 3 items nesting level 1

A. actions are reversible

B. where actions are not reversible, they are checked for errors before
going on to the next step in a process

C. where actions are not reversible, and cannot be checked in advance,
the user is able to review and confirm or correct information before
submitting it.


Current wording for Benefits of Checkpoint 2.5


* Individuals with writing disabilities and people with dyslexia often
have difficulty writing text in forms or other places that need text
input.

* Individuals with speech disabilities might not be recognized properly
in voice input applications.


Proposed wording for Who benefits from Checkpoint 2.5 (Informative)


*        Individuals with writing disabilities and people with dyslexia
often benefit when spelling is checked in situations that require users
to enter text

*        People with trembling hands or other conditions that make it
difficult to type accurately benefit when spelling is checked before
submitting text

*        People with speech disabilities can benefit from the
opportunity to correct information they have entered by speaking.


Current wording for Examples of Checkpoint 2.5


* Example 1: a search engine.

 

A search engine is provided with a variety of search options for
different skill levels and preferences. It includes a spell checker and
offers "best guess" alternatives, query-by-example searches, and
similarity searches.


Proposed wording for Examples of Guideline 2.5  (Informative)


*        Example 1: A search engine

 

A search engine has options for different skill levels and preferences.
It includes a spell checker and offers "best guess" alternatives,
query-by-example searches, and similarity searches.

 

 
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2003 11:37:07 GMT

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