Piecing it together

Jenae and I mapped the Level 1 success criteria for Guidelines 1.1 and 1.3 to the Techniques Gateway and from there to HTML techniques and tests. We referred to the 11 March 2004 Working Draft of WCAG 2.0, the 06 April 2004 draft of Techniques Gateway, and the 09 December 2003 Working Draft of HTML Techniques for WCAG 2.0.

Example 1 - Guideline 1.1

Below are the pieces that fit together for Guideline 1.1. This example only includes links to HTML techniques; after the other techniques are added, this list could become rather long. We only included test information for one of the HTML Techniques sections (10.1).

• Guideline 1.1 For non-text content, provide text equivalents that serve the same purpose or convey the same information as the non-text content, except when the sole purpose of the non-text content is to create a specific sensory experience (for example, music and visual art) in which case a text label or description is sufficient.
  • Level 1 Success Criterion 1: Text-equivalents are explicitly associated with non-text content, except when the non-text content is intended to create a specific sensory experience (for example, music without words and visual art). [I]
    • GATEWAY: 1.1.1 Text Equivalents
    • HTML-TECHS: 10.1 Short text equivalents for img elements ("alt-text"). (the following are derived from Chris' list of tests.)
      • Image must have an ALT attribute
      • ALT text should not be the same as the file name.
      • ALT text should be less than X characters.
      • Important images should not have null ALT text
      • ALT text should not be placeholder text.
      • ALT text can't be empty (null or all spaces) if image is used as an anchor.
      • + alt-text fulfills the same function
    • HTML-TECHS: 10.3 Short text equivalents for object elements ("alt-text")
    • HTML-TECHS: 10.4 Long descriptions of images
  • Level 1 Success Criterion 2: Non-text content that is designed to create a specific sensory experience (such as music without words or visual art) has a text label or a text description explicitly associated with it. [I]
    • GATEWAY: 1.1.1 Text Equivalents
    • HTML-TECHS: 10.1 Short text equivalents for img elements ("alt-text").
      • Image must have an ALT attribute
      • ALT text should not be the same as the file name.
      • ALT text should be less than X characters.
      • images could have null ALT text
      • ALT text should not be placeholder text (i.e., "insert text here").
      • ALT text can't be empty (null or all spaces) if image is used as an anchor.
      • + a label or description exists (implied by the other tests passing?)
    • HTML-TECHS 10.3 Short text equivalents for object elements ("alt-text")
    • HTML-TECHS 10.4 Long descriptions of images

Issues

• In HTML Techs, "10.2 Image titles" does not correspond to any success criteria. It provides additional information, not a text equivalent.
• If in 1.1 all of the HTML techs appear under both SC 1 and SC2, does that mean that we need to provide two separate techniques or that we link to the ... e.g.,
  • split 10.1 into short text equiv for img elements (for SC1) 10.2 labels for img elements (SC2)
    • cons: could double the length of the html techs doc, could seem redundant
    • pros: clearly show examples of sc1 vs sc2 to help explain diffs
  • include both types of examples in 10.1, right now only have example for 10.1
    • cons: may not be as clear to readers the diffs between SC1 and SC2
    • pros: could seem less redundant (than other method)
• If no technology-specifics, say that or don't say anything (e.g., "CSS: no techniques for this criterion")

Example 2 - Guideline 1.3

Another test to determine if we would have the same redundancy issues. We didn't.

• Guideline 1.3 Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation.
  • Level 1 SC1: The following can be derived programmatically (for example, through a markup or data model) from the content without requiring user interpretation of presentation. [I]

    GATEWAY: 1.3.1 Separate content from presentation

    1. Hierarchical elements and relationships, such as:
       • paragraphs
         • HTML-TECHS: no techniques specific to the p element at this time.
         • HTML 4.01: 9.3.1 Paragraphs: the P element
       • lists
         • HTML-TECHS: 6.1 Ordered lists

           Issue: only applies to ordered lists, and its hints for nesting rather than just marking up lists. Refer to HTML 4.01 spec for using structural elements?

         • HTML 4.01: 10 Lists
       • headings
         • HTML-TECHS: 3.1 Section headings
         • HTML 4.01: 7.5.5 Headings: The H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6 elements
       • associations between table cells and their headers
         • HTML-TECHS: 7.7 Specifying the set of data cells for which each header cell provides header information.
         • HTML-TECHS: 7.8 Associating header cells with data cells.
         • HTML-TECHS: 7.11 Row and column headings.
    2. Non-hierarchical relationships between elements such as:
       • cross-references and other associations,
         • ??
       • associations between labels and controls,
         • HTML-TECHS: 14.4 Labeling form controls
    3. Emphasis or other formatting of specific words, phrases, and quotes.
       • HTML-TECHS: 5.1 Emphasis
       • HTML-TECHS: 5.2 Abbreviations
       • HTML-TECHS: 5.3 Acronym
       • HTML-TECHS: 5.4 Short Quotations (future)
       • HTML-TECHS: 5.5 Long Quotations
       • HTML-TECHS: 5.6 Misuse of blockquote??
       • HTML-TECHS: 5.7 Markup and style sheets rather than images: The example of math??
       • HTML-TECHS: 5.8 Eight other structural elements (to identify citations, code fragments, deleted text, and others)
  • Level 1 SC2: Any information presented through color is also available without color (for example, through context or markup or coding that does not depend on color). [I]
    • GATEWAY: 1.3.2 Presentation of structure could be placeholder?
    • HTML-TECHS: nothing - should there be something that points to CSS Techniques or should there be CSS-specific HTML techniques?
    • Gateway: XXX
    • CSS: YYY

Issues

• Unlike Guideline 1.1, there is no redundancy between the 1st and 2nd success criteria. Does this imply that the first two criteria in Guideline 1.1 should be combined in some way?
• There seem to be many techniques related to tables, lists, etc. that do not map back to these criteria. Perhaps other HTML techniques are covered by other Guidelines. If not, do new Level 2 or Level 3 criteria need to be created? Or do the existing criteria need to be generalized more?
• Should we actually incorporate the common techniques in the gateway, or should we link to them as with other technologies? Perhaps gateway would have a short summary of general information, but for more details, go to separate document. Refer to G 1.3 Level 1 SC2 where the majority of the techniques are likely to be in gateway/common.

Initial thoughts at a framework

Our intent was to create a proposal for a framework to link Guidelines and success criteria to the techniques gateway and then link from the gateway to the various technology-specifics. However, after experimenting with two guidelines, we have more questions than answers/proposals. In this section we created a partial list of what we we thought the components of the Gateway techniques should/could be.

• Guideline - copy text of guideline
  • Success criterion - copy text of SC n Level n
    • Link to technology-specifics for this criterion - some of the technology specifics may be in the technology specification itself rather than WCAG 2.0 Techniques (re: p element in Guideline 1.3)
  • Success criterion - copy text of SC n+1 Level n (++ as needed :)

12 April 2004. Wendy Chisholm, Jenae Andershonis for the WCAG WG