W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2004

2.5 Clean Up

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 00:24:57 -0600
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <0HTM00C9FN5JGN@smtp3.doit.wisc.edu>
 


Cleanup  for 2.5


 

Again, the following is proposed cleanup for the TR release.  As before, the
changes and decisions that were made in creating this proposal are listed
first followed by the resulting text.

 

 

1.)            The first suggestion for plain language re-wording of 2.5 was
accepted.

 

2.)            The recommended re-wording of the Level 2 Success Criteria
offered by CKW [I#440] is accepted except that we are suggesting that the
first recommendation "if an error is detected, the error is identified in
text and (where possible) suggestions for correction are provided"  be
divided into two checkpoints.

                1.             If an user error is detected, the error is
identified in text.

                and

                2.             If an user error is detected, and suggestions
for correction are known and can be provided without jeopardizing security,
text validity, etc. they are provided (in an accessible form that meets
Level 1 checkpoints).

 

3.)            Level 3 Success Criteria

 

                1.             A modification of the proposed plain text
[Issue #641] is used.  It is modified to specify that the input options must
be known, that they must number less than 75, and that the options can be
provided without jeopardizing security test validity, etc. so that it would
be testable.   It would then read: 

 

                Where input options are known, there are less than 75 of
them, and they can be provided without jeopardizing security, test validity,
etc., users are allowed to select from a list of options as well as to enter
text directly.

 

                This also closes the editorial note associated with this
guidelines hence the phrase "where possible" has been removed.

 

4.)            Level 3 Success Criteria No. 2 has been deleted since it was
already incorporated into the Level 2 Success Criteria for previous
recommendation.  This closes Issue #642.

 

5.)            Level 3 Success Criteria No. 4 is deleted since it was also
incorporated into the Level 2 guideline per previous recommendation.  This
closes Issue #643 since the suggested edits in 643 are incorporated into the
Level 2 Success Criteria.

 

 

  

 


Guideline 2.5 Help users avoid mistakes and make it easy to correct them.


Level 1 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.5


1.	No level 1 success criteria for this guideline 


Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.5


1.	if a user error is detected, the error is identified and provided to
the user in text. 
2.	if a user error is detected, and suggestions for correction are
known and can be provided without jeopardizing security, test validity, etc,
they are provided (in an accessible form that meets Level 1 checkpoints). 
3.	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 before going on
to the next step in the process

c.      where not reversible, and not checkable, the user is able to review
and confirm or correct information before submitting it


Level 3 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.5 


1.	Where the input options are known, there are less than 75 of them,
and they can be provided without jeopardizing security, test validity, etc,
users are allowed to select from a list of options as well as to enter text
directly.
2.	checks for misspelled words are a pplied and correct spellings are
suggested when text entry is required. [V] 

Guideline
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/issuereports/minimize-error_issues.php>
2.5 (minimize-error) Issues 


Who Benefits from Guideline 2.5 (Informative) 


*	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.


Examples of Guideline 2.5 (Informative) 


*	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.


Gregg

------------------------

Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
< <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848  
For a list of our list discussions http://trace.wisc.edu/lists/

 <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>  

 

 
Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2004 01:24:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:55 UTC