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

WCAG 1.0 Checkpoint 10.2 Action item

From: Gian Sampson-Wild <giansw@ifocus.com.au>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:18:37 +1000
Message-ID: <BB5079183D9A3844A4D8C51168F3872D3C1BC9@SAPPORO.ifocus.com.au>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi

 

A couple of weeks ago I took an action item to determine whether
Checkpoint 10.2 from WCAG 1.0 could be mapped to a particular checkpoint
in WCAG 2.0, and if not, whether there was a sufficient case for
developing a new SC for it.  We discussed at the teleconference mapping
this checkpoint to WCAG 2.0 Guideline 1.3, 2.4 or 4.2.  I read through
the comments from the questionnaire and have some responses:

*         [Response to comment by Christophe]: I don't believe it can
map to 1.1 as we cannot define field text labels as 'non-text' content

*         [Response to comment by Makoto]: Fields and text labels do not
need to sit within a layout table.

*         [Response to David]: Have there been any more discussions in
the techniques group?

 

I believe we can map this to GL 2.4 (Provide mechanisms to help users
find content, orient themselves within it, and navigate through it.)
Level 2 SC: More than one way is available to locate content within a
set of delivery units
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#deliveryunitdef#deliveryunitdef> .  For my
reasoning as to why it does not map anywhere else, see below.

 

GUIDELINE 1.3: Ensure that information, functionality, and structure can
be separated from presentation.

 

Level 1 Success Criteria

1.	Structures
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#structuredef#structuredef>  within the
content can be programmatically determined
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#programmaticallydetermineddef#programmatic
allydetermineddef> .

*         In this case, you would define the field label as
programmatically determining the structure by associating a field using
the FOR and ID attributes (as agreed in our mapping - however see
previous email I sent "change in mapping?"). However an explicit label
for a particular field can be anywhere on that page - a coded field
label does not indicate proximity to its associated field.

2.	When information is conveyed by color, the color can be
programmatically determined
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#programmaticallydetermineddef#programmatic
allydetermineddef>  or the information is also conveyed through another
means that does not depend on the user's ability to differentiate
colors.

*         The latter part of this checkpoint would apply however it
specifically references the use of colour - not the position.

 

Level 2 Success Criteria

1.	Information that is conveyed by variations in presentation
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#presentationdef#presentationdef>  of text
is also conveyed in text or the variations in presentation of text can
be programmatically determined
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#programmaticallydetermineddef#programmatic
allydetermineddef> .

*         One could argue that having an improperly positioned field
label would violate the first section of this checkpoint, however the
'fix' is to provide the information in text or ensure that it is
programmatically determined (see point 1 in Level 1 Success Criteria
above)

2.	Any information that is conveyed by color is visually evident
when color is not available.

*         Once again this checkpoint references only colour

 

Level 3 Success Criteria

1.	When content is arranged in a sequence that affects its meaning,
that sequence can be determined programmatically
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#programmaticallydetermineddef#programmatic
allydetermineddef> .

*         Once again this requires programmatic determination.

 

GUIDELINE 2.4: Provide mechanisms to help users find content, orient
themselves within it, and navigate through it.

 

Level 1 Success Criteria

1.	Navigational features
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#navfeaturesdef#navfeaturesdef>  can be
programmatically identified
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#programmaticallyidentifieddef#programmatic
allyidentifieddef> .

*         Ditto re programmatically identified

 

Level 2 Success Criteria

1.	More than one way is available to locate content within a set of
delivery units
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#deliveryunitdef#deliveryunitdef> .

*         This could be an appropriate mapping

2.	Blocks of content that are repeated on multiple perceivable
units
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#perceivableunitdef#perceivableunitdef>
are implemented so that they can be bypassed.

*         A field is not a block of content and we don't want people to
bypass them.

3.	Delivery units
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#deliveryunitdef#deliveryunitdef>  have
descriptive titles

*         Not relevant to fields

4.	The destination of each programmatic reference to another
delivery unit
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#deliveryunitdef#deliveryunitdef>  is
identified through words or phrases that either occur in text or can be
programmatically determined
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#programmaticallydetermineddef#programmatic
allydetermineddef> .

*         Not relevant to fields

 

Level 3 Success Criteria

1.	When a page or other delivery unit
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#deliveryunitdef#deliveryunitdef>  is
navigated sequentially, elements receive focus in an order that follows
relationships and sequences in the content.

*         Is sequentially defined as via the code or via the layout of
the page as it appears (for example with HTML) with style sheets?  Is
'focus' required as cursor or screen reader focus or can it be defined
as magnifier focus or focus by a person?  If the latter is correct for
these two questions then this could be the correct mapping.

2.	Information about the user's location within a set of delivery
units <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#deliveryunitdef#deliveryunitdef>  is
available

*         Not relevant to fields

 

GUIDELINE 4.2: Ensure that user interfaces are accessible or provide an
accessible alternative(s)

 

Level 1 Success Criteria

1.	If content does not meet all level 1 success criteria, then an
alternate form is provided that does meet all level 1 success criteria.

*         Not relevant to position

2.	Content <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#contentdef#contentdef>
using baseline <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#baselinedef#baselinedef>
technologies or non-baseline technologies, must meet the following
criteria:

*         Not relevant to position

3.	The role, state, and value can be programmatically determined
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#programmaticallydetermineddef#programmatic
allydetermineddef>  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.

*         Ditto programmatically determined

4.	The label of each user interface control that accepts input from
the user can be programmatically determined
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#programmaticallydetermineddef#programmatic
allydetermineddef>  and is explicitly associated with the control.

*         Ditto programmatically determined

5.	The states and values of content that can be changed via the
user interface can also be changed programmatically.

*         Ditto programmatically determined

6.	Changes to content, structure, selection, focus, attributes,
values, state, and relationships within the content can be
programmatically determined
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#programmaticallydetermineddef#programmatic
allydetermineddef> .

*         Ditto programmatically determined

 

Level 2 Success Criteria

1.	Accessibility conventions of the markup or programming language
(API's or specific markup) are used.

*         Not relevant to position

 

Level 3 Success Criteria

1.	Content implemented using technologies outside of baseline
<http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#baselinedef#baselinedef>  follows all WCAG
requirements supported by the technology.

*         Not relevant to fields

 

 

Cheers,

Gian

 

Gian Sampson-Wild 

Member: W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group

iFocus Pty Limited
Level 1, 450 St Kilda Road
Melbourne Vic 3004
ph: + 61 3 8807 0100  |  fx: +61 3 8807 0101
mailto:giansw@ifocus.com.au <mailto:giansw@ifocus.com.au>   |
http://www.ifocus.com.au <http://www.ifocus.com.au/>  

:: Australian Federal Government Endorsed Supplier
:: Queensland Government Information Technology Contract (GITC) Endorsed
Supplier
:: Member of the Victorian Government eServices Panel
:: Member of the Australian Government Information Management Office Web
Management Panel (AGIMO)

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

The information contained in this message is intended only for the
recipient, may be privileged and confidential and protected from
disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the
intended recipient, please be aware that any dissemination or copying of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the
message and deleting it from your computer. iFocus maintains up-to-date
virus checking software and we recommend that you also employ resident
virus protection. Our liability with respect to the transference of
computer viruses is limited to resupplying the infected email or
document again.
Thank-you, iFocus Pty Limited. ABN 23 090 593 525

 
Received on Monday, 29 August 2005 07:19:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:39 GMT