W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

Revised Proposal, GL 4.2

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lguarino@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 17:38:59 -0700
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <6.1.1.1.2.20050503172513.01cd2b28@mailsj-v1.corp.adobe.com>

Based on feedback from the group and discussions with Gregg, I've revised 
the proposals for GL 4.2.The changes are:
   * The definition of baseline has been streamlined, with more discussion 
moved to the conformance section
   * The original proposal 6 has been split into 2 parts, since part of it 
was related to the content being perceivable (GL 1.3) and part to the 
content being operable (GL 2.1).  (Proposals [6] and [8])
   * An additional SC for GL 1.3 is that user interface elements that can 
accept input have a label. (Proposal [7])
   * A potential SC for GL 2.4 is that changes to the content can be 
programmatically determined. (Proposal [9]). This is to address the 
orientation problems introduced when the content changes. It isn't clear to 
me whether this really belongs in WCAG, or whether it is just a user agent 
issue.

Loretta



*****************************************************************************

We propose removing this guideline, since much of it is now covered by the 
baseline question, and modifying other parts of WCAG to cover the remaining 
issues. The proposed modifications are listed below.


Proposals

[1] Definition of baseline:
<proposal>
The minimum set of technologies that can be assumed to be supported by user 
agents in order to access all information and functionality of the Web 
content.
</proposal>

[2] Definition of technology
<proposal>
"Technology" means a data format, programming or markup language, protocol 
or API.
</proposal>

[3] Conformance Requirements modifications
<proposal>
WCAG 2.0 defines accessibility guidelines and success criteria as 
functional outcomes that are technology independent to allow conformance 
using any Web technology that supports accessibility. WCAG 2.0 therefore 
does not require or prohibit the use of any specific technology. It is 
possible to conform to WCAG 2.0 using W3C and non-W3C technologies, 
provided they are supported by accessible user agents. In choosing 
technologies to rely upon, developers need to know what technologies they 
can assume are supported by accessible user agents. This is called the 
baseline.

Developers must ensure that all information and functionality comprising 
the Web content conforms to WCAG assuming user agents support only the 
baseline set of technologies. Developers may also choose to use 
technologies that are not in the baseline provided that the following are true:

       - The Web content still conforms using user agents that only support 
the technologies that are in the baseline (i.e. the use of technologies 
that are not in the minimum set does not "break" access to the Web content 
by user agents that don't support them.)

       - All content and functionality must be available using only the 
baseline technologies.

Baselines may be defined outside the WCAG 2.0 guidelines as part of a more 
comprehensive accessibility policy. Baseline considerations will be 
significantly different if the organization defining the baseline can 
guarantee the user agents used by the users.

For example, a company or government agency provides its employees with the 
information technology tools they need to do their jobs. So for intranet 
sites used only by employees, it is reasonable for the baseline to include 
newer technologies that might only be supported in one user agent.

For a government publishing information for its citizens on the Internet, 
however, it is reasonable for the baseline to only include technologies 
that have been widely supported by more than one accessible user agent for 
more than one release.

Alternatively, governments might implement funding policies to provide 
citizens with accessible user agents that support newer technologies. In 
this case, it is reasonable for governments to include in their baseline 
newer technologies that have limited support by accessible user agents.

1. Any conformance with WCAG 2.0 requires that all level 1 success criteria 
for all guidelines be met assuming user agent support for only the set of 
baseline technologies.

2. WCAG 2.0 conformance at level A means that all level 1 success criteria 
for all guidelines are met assuming user agent support for only the set of 
baseline technologies.

3. WCAG 2.0 conformance at level Double-A means that all level 1 and all 
level 2 success criteria for all guidelines are met assuming user agent 
support for only the baseline technologies.

4. WCAG 2.0 conformance at level Triple-A means that all level 1, level 2 
and level 3 success criteria for all guidelines are met assuming user agent 
support for only the baseline technologies.
</proposal>

[4] Reading order
<proposal>
Promote the following success criteria of GL 2.4 to level 1:
       * When content is arranged in a sequence that affects its meaning, 
that sequence can be determined programmatically.
       * When a page or other delivery unit is navigated sequentially, 
elements receive focus in an order that follows relationships and sequences 
in the content
</proposal>

[5] authoring applications (part of conformance?)
<proposal>
Web applications that are created for the sole purpose of assisting users 
to create content intended for publication on the web must conform to at 
least Level A of the ATAG 2.0 Guidelines.
</proposal>
Issue: ATAG requires WCAG conformance, so we would definitely be 
introducing infinite recursion if we include this in WCAG.

[6] New GL 1.3 Level 1 SC
<proposal>
The role, state, and value can be programmatically determined for every 
user interface component of the web content that accepts input from the 
user or changes dynamically in response to user input or external events.
</proposal>

[7] New GL 1.3 Level 1 SC
<proposal>
The label of each user interface control that accepts input from the user 
can be programmatically determined and is explicitly associated  with the 
control.
</proposal>

[8] New GL 2.1 Level 1 SC
<proposal>
The states and values of contents that can be changed via the user 
interface can also be changed programmatically.
</proposal>
We may need to broaden the Guideline wording.

[9] New GL 2.4, Level 1 SC
<proposal>
Changes to content, structure, selection, focus, attributes, values, state, 
and relationships within the content can be programmatically determined.
</proposal>
Issue: how much of this is just a user agent requirement? When does
the author have responsibility for any of this?
Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2005 00:39:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:37 UTC