W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: Instruction and Assessment

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:23:56 -0500
Message-ID: <3A7714CC.4B70F40E@w3.org>
To: Denis Anson <danson@miseri.edu>
CC: "Hansen, Eric" <ehansen@ets.org>, Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>, "UA List (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Denis Anson wrote:
> 
> One weakness of this recommendation is that not all accessibility features
> are identified as such. 

We say "The accessibility features of a specification are 
those identified as such and those that satisfy all of the 
requirements of the "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0"
[WCAG10]."

Furthermore, color control is a requirement of this document (UAAG 1.0,
checkpoint 4.3), so I think that between UAAG 1.0, WCAG 1.0, and
what's identified as benefitting accessibility, we have covered
the question of "what are accessibility features" pretty well. As well
as we can do today, in my opinion.

 - Ian

> For example, Windows settings for foreground and
> background colors are considered to be just interface features, but can make
> content difficult of impossible to access for people with visual
> limitations.
> 
> Denis Anson, MS, OTR/L
> Assistant Professor
> College Misericordia
> 301 Lake St.
> Dallas, PA 18612
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org]On Behalf
> Of Hansen, Eric
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 2:13 PM
> To: 'Ian Jacobs'; Hansen, Eric
> Cc: 'Jon Gunderson '; 'UA List (E-mail) '
> Subject: RE: Instruction and Assessment
> 
> I can see what you are saying about the difference in priority. Here is
> another way to handle this that I think makes more overall sense...
> 
> Change checkpoint 6.1, which is P1 to encompass "all features of implemented
> specifications", including accessibility features.
> 
> New:
> 
> "6.1 Implement the features of all implemented specifications (markup
> languages, style sheet languages, metadata languages, graphics formats,
> etc.). This includes accessibility features of a specification, which are
> those identified as such and those that satisfy all of the requirements of
> the "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" [WCAG10]. [Priority 1]"
> 
> Old (26 January 2001):
> 
> "6.1 Implement the accessibility features of all implemented specifications
> (markup languages, style sheet languages, metadata languages, graphics
> formats, etc.). The accessibility features of a specification are those
> identified as such and those that satisfy all of the requirements of the
> "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" [WCAG10]. [Priority 1]"
> 
> The advantage of this is that it makes guideline 6 cover everything about
> conformance to specifications and guideline 2 cover display of content
> through the user interface.
> 
> To carry things a bit further, I would recommend considering a reordering of
> the guidelines.
> 
> GL 1 (old GL 6) - Ensure conformance to specifications
> GL 2 (old GL 2) - Display content through the user interface
> GL 3 (old GL 1) - Support input and output device independence
> GL 4 (old GL 3)
> GL 5 (old GL 4)
> GL 6 (old GL 5)
> GL 7 (same)
> GL 8 (same)
> GL 9 (same)
> GL 10 (same)
> 
> I think that the reordering is sensible because it puts guideline 6 up front
> where it belongs. It seems to me that we are placing greater reliance on the
> checkpoints in guideline 6 that ever before and it is time to give it the
> prominence that it deserves.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 12:54 PM
> > To: Hansen, Eric
> > Cc: 'Jon Gunderson '; 'UA List (E-mail) '
> > Subject: Re: Instruction and Assessment
> >
> >
> > "Hansen, Eric" wrote:
> > >
> > > And if so, why do we really need to say it at all, since
> > conformance to
> > > specifications is an assumption underlying the whole document?
> >
> > The difference is priority: 6.2 is P2.
> >
> > > If this is the case, then the first sentence of checkpoint
> > 2.1 could be
> > > deleted.
> > >
> > > In that case, we would have the following:
> > >
> > > New:
> > >
> > > "2.1 Provide a view (e.g., a document source view) of the
> > text portions of
> > > content. This is only required for formats defined by
> > specifications that
> > > the user agent implements. [Priority 1]"
> > > Old (26 January 2001):
> > >
> > > Old:
> > >
> > > "2.1 Make all content available through the user interface.
> > As part of
> > > meeting this requirement, provide a view (e.g., a document
> > source view) of
> > > the text portions of content. This is only required for
> > formats defined by
> > > specifications that the user agent implements. [Priority 1]"
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > EH:
> > >
> > > Here is a revision of the checkpoint that pertains to
> > content produced by
> > > the user agent.
> > >
> > > New:
> > >
> > > "1.3 Ensure that every message (e.g., prompt, alert,
> > notification, etc.)
> > > that is a non-text element and is part of the user agent
> > user interface has
> > > AN AVAILABLE text equivalent. [Priority 1]"
> > >
> > > Old (26 January 2001):
> > >
> > > "1.3 Ensure that every message (e.g., prompt, alert,
> > notification, etc.)
> > > that is a non-text element and is part of the user agent
> > user interface has
> > > a text equivalent. [Priority 1]"
> > >
> > > Comment on revised checkpoint 1.3. This change makes
> > explicit that the text
> > > equivalent must be available to the user.
> >
> > I agree with this, though I am not sure it adds significantly to the
> > checkpoint.
> >
> >  _ Ian
> >
> > --
> > Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> > Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
> > Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
> >

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Tuesday, 30 January 2001 14:27:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:29 UTC