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

Re: 1.6 (was 1.5) cleanup proposal + proposal to merge with 2.4

From: Kerstin Goldsmith <kerstin.goldsmith@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 12:27:43 -0800
Message-ID: <4044EE3F.9050300@oracle.com>
To: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Cc: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
John,

I am a little confused.  I believe that your re-wording is what appears 
in the most current internal working draft, and the wording that we have 
been working off of for 1.5/1.6.  Did you see evidence that the 
re-wording was not in place?

-Kerstin

John M Slatin wrote:

> Gregg, I'm re-sending (pasted in below) my "plain language" rewrite of 
> the old 1.5.  At least some of the wording I proposed there seems to 
> address some of the issues you're proposing here.  I'm not prepared to 
> comment yet on whether to merge 1the new 1.6 with 2.4...
>  
> John
> <begin resend of plain=language rewrite of 1.5>
>
> Plain language version of Guideline 1.5 plus success criteria, 
> benefits, and examples
>
>  
>
> This document contains a series of proposals for a "plain language_ 
> rewording of WCAG 2.0 Checkpoint 1.5 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) 1, Checkpoint (now Guideline) 1.5, 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.  
> 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 1.5
>
> 1.5 [E1] Structure has been made perceivable through presentation. [I#439]
>
>
>   Proposed wording for Guideline 1.5
>
> 1.5 [E1] Make structure perceivable. [I#439]
>
>
>   Current wording for Checkpoint 1.5, SC 1
>
> 1. the structural elements present have a different visual appearance 
> or auditory characteristic from each other and from body text.
>
>
>   Proposed wording for Guideline 1.5, SC 1
>
> Structural elements can be recognized by the way they look, the way 
> they sound, or both.
>
>
>   Current wording for Best Practice Measures for Checkpoint 1.5
>
> 1. the structural emphases are chosen to be distinct on different 
> major visual display types (e.g. black and white, small display, mono 
> audio playback).
>
> 2. Content is constructed such that users can control the presentation 
> of structural elements or the emphasis on the structure can be varied 
> through alternate presentation formats.
>
>  
>
> Additional Notes for Checkpoint 1.5 (Informative)
>
> 1. for visual presentations, font variations, styles, size and white 
> space can be used to emphasize structure.
>
> 2. color and graphics can be used to emphasize structure.
>
> 3. for auditory presentations, different voice characteristics 
> and/sounds can be used for major headings, sections and other 
> structural elements.
>
> 4. if content is targeted for a specific user group and the 
> presentation of the structured content is not salient enough to meet 
> the needs of your audience, additional graphics, colors, sounds, and 
> other aspects of presentation can be used to emphasize the structure.
>
>
>   Proposed wording for Best Practice Measures for Guideline 1.5
>
> 1.  structural emphasis is recognizable on multiple display devices, 
> (for example, black and white monitors, small screens, monaural  audio 
> playback devices, etc.). [js 10/25: had to delete "visual" because 
> it's incompatible with the reference to mono audio playback]
>
> Content is constructed so that users can change the visual appearance 
> or auditory properties of structural elements.
>
>  
>
> Additional Notes for Guideline 1.5 (Informative)
>
> To emphasize structure visually, use font variations, styles, and 
> sizes in addition to white space, color, and graphics.
>
> 3. To emphasize structure audibly, use different voice characteristics 
> and other sounds to indicate section headings and other structural 
> elements.
>
> 4. if the default presentation of the structure is not distinct enough 
> to meet the needs of a specific user group within the audience for the 
> content, then additional graphics, colors, sounds, and other aspects 
> of presentation can be used to emphasize the structure. [js 10/25: Do 
> we want to say, "... then an alternate presentation that features 
> additional graphics, etc."? or are we recommending changes to the 
> default presentation?]
>
> [js note: The items under "additional notes" should probably be 
> removed to techniques]
>
>
>   Current wording for Benefits of Checkpoint 1.5
>
> Presentation that emphasizes structure:
>
> . enables users with cognitive and visual disabilities to orient 
> themselves within the content,
>
> . enables all users to move quickly through the content and notice 
> major content divisions
>
> . enables all users, but particularly users with visual or cognitive 
> disabilities to focus on important content,
>
> . enables all users, but particularly users with visual or cognitive 
> disabilities to distinguish the different types of content.
>
>
>   Proposed wording for Who benefits from Checkpoint 1.5 (Informative)
>
> Here are some of the ways in which users benefit when structure is 
> perceivable:
>
>         People with cognitive and visual disabilities can orient 
> themselves within the content;
>
>         People with cognitive and visual disabilities can move 
> quickly through the content and notice major divisions;
>
>         People with visual or cognitive disabilities can focus on 
> important content; and
>
>         People with visual, auditory, or cognitive disabilities, can 
> recognize different types of content.
>
>
>   Current wording for Examples of Checkpoint 1.5
>
> . Example 1: documentation for a product.
>
>  
>
> Identifying chapters in the structure of a book is appropriate and 
> accepted use of labeling the structure. Within the chapters, headings 
> identify (label) changes in context and highlight ideas contained in 
> the following text. Subtle differences between the appearance of the 
> chapter title and the section headings helps the user understand the 
> hierarchy and relationship between the title and headings. The only 
> difference might be font size and margin indentation
>
> when presented visually, and spoken in a difference voice or preceded 
> by a sound when presented auditorily.
>
> . Example 2: a data table.
>
>  
>
> Groups of rows or columns are labeled with headers.
>
> . Example 3: an audio presentation.
>
>  
>
> An audio rendering of a document, generated according to a style 
> sheet, uses a different, more formal voice to read titles and headers 
> so the listener can easily identify the words as a title and not part 
> of the running text.
>
>  
>
>
>   Proposed wording for Examples of Guideline 1.5
>
>
>   (Informative)
>
> . Example 1. Visual and auditory presentation of structure in 
> documentation for a product
>
>  
>
> Changes in font and auditory emphasis let users see or hear the 
> logical hierarchy of the text. For example, headings for major 
> sections appear in a larger, bolder font than headings of less 
> important sections and are spoken in a lower-pitched voice. Long 
> quotations are indented from the left and right margins, and short 
> beeps indicate where the quotations begin and end.  Other tones 
> identify keystrokes to be entered by the user, which are separated 
> from the body text and shown in a different font; text boxes that 
> highlight additional tips have a shaded background and a 
> characteristic background sound; etc.
>
>  
>
> These visual and auditory cues help users understand the document 
> hierarchy and the relationships among different elements.
>
>  
>
> . Example 2: a data table.
>
> Groups of rows and columns are identified as headers. Screen readers 
> report both headers and data when the user moves from cell to cell 
> within the table.
>
>  
>
> Example 3. An audio presentation [js note: deleted and merged into 
> Example 1.  Also,]
>
>  
>
>  </end resend>
>
>  
>  
>
>
> "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/
>
>  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] 
> *On Behalf Of *Gregg Vanderheiden
> *Sent:* Monday, March 01, 2004 4:52 pm
> *To:* w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> *Subject:* 1.6 (was 1.5) cleanup proposal + proposal to merge with 2.4
>
> The following is a proposal for cleaning up old 1.5
>
>  
>
> Thanks Kirsten for all your work on this.
>
> and Wendy for putting it all together.
>
>  
>
> In looking this over - I would like to suggest that we merge these 
> with  to 2.4
>
> Guideline 2.4 Facilitate the ability of users to orient themselves and 
> move within the content.
>
>  
>
> All of the benefits look like they belong in 2.4
>
>
> Gregg
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
>       *Guideline 1.6 Make structure perceivable through presentation.
>       *[level 2 guideline]
>
>
>         *Level 1 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.6*
>
>    1. No level 1 success criteria for this guideline
>
>
>         *Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.6*
>
>    1. The structural elements present have a different visual
>       appearance or auditory characteristic from each other and from
>       body text. [V]
>
> **Editorial Note**: We need to define "structural elements" in the 
> above criterion.
>
>
>         *Level 3 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.6 *
>
>    1. Structural emphasis is evident on at least the following displays:
>          1. black and white monitor,
>          2. low resolution screens  (160 x 160 pixel) ,
>          3. "mono" audio playback devices.
>
> [V]
>
> Guideline 1.5 (structure-emphasis) Issues 
> <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/issuereports/structure-emphasis_issues.php> 
>
>
>
>         *Who Benefits from Guideline 1.6 (Informative) *
>
> Presentation that emphasizes structure:
>
>     * enables users with **cognitive and visual disabilities** to
>       orient themselves within the content,
>     * enables all users to move quickly through the content and notice
>       major content divisions
>     * enables all users, but particularly users with **visual or
>       cognitive disabilities** to focus on important content,
>     * enables all users, but particularly users with **visual or
>       cognitive disabilities** to distinguish the different types of
>       content.
>
>
>         *Examples of Guideline 1.6 (Informative) *
>
>     * **Example 1: documentation for a product.**
>
> Identifying chapters in the structure of a book is appropriate and 
> accepted use of labeling the structure. Within the chapters, headings 
> identify (label) changes in context and highlight ideas contained in 
> the following text. Subtle differences between the appearance of the 
> chapter title and the section headings helps the user understand the 
> hierarchy and relationship between the title and headings. The only 
> difference might be font size and margin indentation when presented 
> visually, and spoken in a difference voice or preceded by a sound when 
> presented auditorily.
>
>     * **Example 2: a data table.**
>
> Groups of rows or columns are labeled with headers.
>
>     * **Example 3: an audio presentation.**
>
> An audio rendering of a document, generated according to a style 
> sheet, uses a different, more formal voice to read titles and headers 
> so the listener can easily identify the words as a title and not part 
> of the running text.
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
>       *Guideline 2.4 Facilitate the ability of users to orient
>       themselves and move within the content. *[level 2 guideline]
>
>
>         *Level 1 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.4*
>
>    1. No level 1 success criteria for this guideline
>
>
>         *Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.4*
>
>    1. In documents greater than 50,000 words or sites larger than 50
>       perceived pages, at least one of the following is provided. [V]
>
> **Editorial Note: NRT** (5 Nov 2003): What's a perceived page? What if 
> it's a voice XML application. How does it apply to web applications? 
> Why 50 and 50,000? (` Success Criteria 
> <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003OctDec/0234.html>)
>
>          1. hierarchical /structure,/
>             <file:///C:%5CDocuments%20and%20Settings%5Cvander%5CDesktop%5CWD-WCAG20-20040301%5b2%5d.html#structuredef#structuredef>
>
>          2. table of contents (for pages) or site map (for sites),
>          3. alternate display order (for pages) or alternate /site
>             navigation mechanisms/
>             <file:///C:%5CDocuments%20and%20Settings%5Cvander%5CDesktop%5CWD-WCAG20-20040301%5b2%5d.html#site-nav-mechdef#site-nav-mechdef>
>             (for sites).
>    1. Large blocks of material that are repeated on multiple pages,
>       such as navigation menus with more than 8 or more links, etc.,
>       can be bypassed by people who use screen readers or who navigate
>       via keyboard or keyboard interface. [V]
>
>
>         *Level 3 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.4 *
>
>    1. Information is provided that would indicate at least one logical
>       sequence in which to read a document. [I]
>    2. Diagrams are constructed so that they have /structure/
>       <file:///C:%5CDocuments%20and%20Settings%5Cvander%5CDesktop%5CWD-WCAG20-20040301%5b2%5d.html#structuredef#structuredef>
>       that users can access. [I]
>    3. Logical tab order has been created. [I]
>
> **Editorial Note: NRT** (5 Nov 2003): "logical tab order" may not be 
> testable.
>
>    4. There is a statement associated with the content asserting that
>       items from the following list were considered: [V]
>          1. Breaking up text into logical paragraphs,
>          2. Dividing documents, especially very long ones, into
>             hierarchical sections and subsections with clear and
>             informative titles,
>          3. Supplying an informative title for each page or resource
>             that can be accessed independently (for example, from a
>             search results page),
>
> **Editorial Note**: If the requirement for informative titles is 
> testable (in Guideline 3.1 
> <file:///C:%5CDocuments%20and%20Settings%5Cvander%5CDesktop%5CWD-WCAG20-20040301%5b2%5d.html#meaning#meaning>) 
> and remains a Level 2 success criteria, then consider dropping this 
> criteria.
>
>          4. Supplying a unique title for each page or resource that
>             can be accessed independently (for example, from a search
>             results page),
>          5. Revealing important non-hierarchical relationships, such
>             as cross-references so that the relationships are
>             represented unambiguously in the markup or data model.
>
> **Editorial Note**: Are there any others?
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
> 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/>_ FAX 608/262-8848 
> For a list of our list discussions http://trace.wisc.edu/lists/
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
Received on Tuesday, 2 March 2004 15:35:27 UTC

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