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

Please review: New drafts of Gateway techniques

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 09:58:02 -0400
Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.2.20040728094516.01f4b5a8@localhost>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

Hello,

Ben and I have been working on a draft of the Gateway Techniques for 
publication as a public draft (we divided up the work by separating content 
from presentation [grin]).  The draft only contains information about 
Guideline 1.1 and is a mixture of text written by John Slatin andTom Croucher.

There are several issues that we need to address that will likely prevent 
us from publishing the draft this week. I propose that we publish HTML and 
CSS Techniques this week and WCAG 2.0 and Gateway next week.  I have tried 
to keep the draft as straight-forward as possible to make it as easy as 
possible for the group to bless, but I know our group [grin] - you are a 
smart bunch and are likely to find many issues.

Here are the issues that I know about (and would like to raise in a message 
to the WG):

1. We can generate three views (thanks to Ben)
[1] <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2004/07/test-gateway1>
includes a detailed table of contents (principle, guideline, success 
criteria, and techniques)
[2] <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2004/07/test-gateway2>
includes a less-detailed table of contents (principle, guideline)
[3] <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2004/07/test-gateway3/>
divides the document into several slices: the first is a general table of 
contents, and then a separate document for each success criterion.

Each view has pros and cons. Which do you like best? Perhaps we can combine 
them in some way?

2. Will testability of Gateway techniques be a concern?  There is an ednote 
in the first technique that raises this question.

3. Benefits and examples from the guidelines document need to be expanded 
upon in the gateway techniques.  There is an ednote in the first technique 
that raises this issue.
On a related note, we need to ensure that as we rewrite success criteria, 
that examples and benefits are also updated.  Working on gateway provided a 
good perspective on this.  I have a mapping for Guideline 1.1 that I intend 
to use as the basis for future proposals to both guidelines and gateway. 
(this issue is not critical and should not prevent us from publishing the 
drafts)

4. I have only included links to html techniques from the first technique. 
I have completed the mapping for the other techniques, but wanted to get 
this draft out for review.

5. I created a separate technique for each subpart of the level 1 success 
criterion for guideline 1.1.  I think this works well, except for c 
(non-text content that is intended to create a specific sensory 
experience...) in which case there are two techniques: one for music and 
one for audio.  I'm not sure this is the best approach.  There is an ednote 
that raises this question.

6.  The text for the techniques is not the same as the text in the success 
criterion.  For example, technique 1.1.1 is named, "Text alternatives for 
non-text content that provides functionality"
however the success criterion text is, "For non-text content that is 
functional, such as graphical links or buttons, text alternatives identify 
the purpose or function of the non-text content; or,"  This was from John's 
draft and I liked it.  However, this might be confusing.  There is an 
ednote that raises this question.

7. Some of the text is very rough and hard to read, but it's a start.

8. how to deal with numbering...
Techniques in the gateway draft are nested below many levels of headings 
(principle, guideline, success criterion, technique). How can we number 
techniques so that they are both unique and identifiable out of context 
without creating confusion with other techniques documents and their 
numbering?

Thoughts?

Best,
--wendy

-- 
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
http://www.w3.org/WAI/
/--  
Received on Wednesday, 28 July 2004 09:58:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:58 UTC