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

RE: Exceptions in guideline formulations (non-urgent)

From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 13:31:23 -0600
Message-ID: <C46A1118E0262B47BD5C202DA2490D1A0183ABE9@MAIL02.austin.utexas.edu>
To: "Yvette P. Hoitink" <y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Excellent! 


"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 Yvette P. Hoitink
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 1:19 pm
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Exceptions in guideline formulations (non-urgent)



Hello everyone,

Reading the working draft, I noticed that in some guidelines we have
included the exceptions in the guideline text, while in other guidelines
we have not. Some of the guidelines now read like a summary of the
checkpoints, which I think is the wrong way around. The succes criteria
should explain how to meet the guidelines. 

Compare:

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."

To:

Guideline 1.2 "Provide synchronized media equivalents for time-dependent
presentations."

Both of these guidelines have exceptions, but in 1.1 these are included
in the guideline text whereas in 1.2 they are only mentioned in the
success criteria. Personally, I think guidelines without the exceptions
in the text are much stronger, easier to understand and easier to
remember. 

It's just like formulating use cases in UML: I think we should focus on
the normal case, not the exceptions. I propose we formulate the
guidelines as the normal cases of what we want to say, and leave the
exceptions, alternatives to tackle specific circumstances and further
explanations to the success criteria.

Proposed changes:

Guideline 1.1

Current wording:
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.

Proposed wording:
Provide text equivalents for non-text content.

Guideline 2.1:

Current wording:
Make all functionality operable via a keyboard or a keyboard interface.

Proposed wording:
Make all functionality operable via a keyboard.

Guideline 2.2:

Current wording:
Allow users to control time limits on their reading or interaction
unless specific real-time events or rules of competition make such
control impossible.

Proposed wording:
Allow users to control time limits on their reading or interaction.

Guideline 4.2:

Current wording:
Ensure that user interfaces are accessible or provide an accessible
alternative

Proposed wording:
Ensure that user interfaces are accessible.

Yvette Hoitink
CEO Heritas, Enschede, The Netherlands
E-mail: y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl
Received on Thursday, 4 March 2004 14:31:24 UTC

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