(A bunch of notes and document excerpts from WCAG, ATAG, UAAG, regarding the content and verifiability of checkpoints, and the relationship of Guideline parts to Techniques parts. A summary precedes the notes. - LH, 20020918). ======================================== ===== Summary ======================================== Document versions ---- The GL document is W3C Recommendation, the Techniques document is W3C Note. WCAG and ATAG point to Techniques documents (Notes in /TR/) that are several months newer than their GL documents, and that apparently replaced the Techniques document that was first posted with the GL document. Checkpoints ---- The Checkpoint wording is simply a "title" for the checkpoint -- no normative implications. There is subjective wording in CK statements in WCAG ("clearly", "appropriate", etc), but it seems to have mostly disappeared by ATAG (except, "naturally integrated"), and UAAG. The normative requirements are carried in the body of the CK section, as individual requirements. In ATAG & WCAG, there is no statement anywhere about exactly what constitutes satisfaction of the checkpoint requirements, other than the words of the individual requirements themselves in the GL document. Judgement is implied. (See ATAG for example.) In UAAG, some checkpoints have explicit "Sufficient techniques" sections (in the GL document). GL-Tech relationships ---- The Techniques show how an implementation *might* satisfy the checkpoint. There is nothing normative about the Techniques documents, e.g., "ATAG Techniques" calls itself "informative appendix. They are not exhaustive. UAAG, at least, specifically identifies "Sufficient Techniques" after the checkpoint, in both the UAAG (normative) and "UAAG Techniques" (informative) documents. WCAG and ATAG don't say what is sufficient. ======================================== ===== WCAG ======================================== WCAG 1.0 (Recommendation) ---- (Abstract) A separate document, entitled "Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" ([TECHNIQUES]), explains how to implement the checkpoints defined in the current document. The Techniques Document discusses each checkpoint in more detail and provides examples using the Hypertext Markup Language (HTML), Cascading Style Sheets (CSS), Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL), and the Mathematical Markup Language (MathML). (ch.3) checkpoint definition includes: ... A link to a section of the Techniques Document ([TECHNIQUES]) where implementations and examples of the checkpoint are discussed... Each checkpoint is intended to be specific enough so that someone reviewing a page or site may verify that the checkpoint has been satisfied. (ck2.2--a problematic example--subjective) Ensure that foreground and background color combinations provide sufficient contrast when viewed by someone having color deficits or when viewed on a black and white screen. (ck3.1--a problematic example--subjective) When an appropriate markup language exists, use markup rather than images to convey information. (ck4.1--a problematic example--subjective) Clearly identify changes in the natural language of a document's text and any text equivalents WCAG Techniques (W3C Note) ---- (SoTD) While the "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" Recommendation [WCAG10] is a stable document, this series of companion documents is expected to evolve as technologies change and content developers discover more effective techniques for designing accessible Web sites and pages. (ch.1) Each checkpoint is followed by one or more links to techniques in the following documents:... "HTML Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" ([WCAG10-HTML-TECHNIQUES]), which provides examples and strategies for authoring accessible Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) content." WCAG HTML Techniques (W3C Note) ---- (abstract) This document describes techniques for authoring accessible Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) content (refer to HTML 4.01 [HTML4]). This document is intended to help authors of Web content who wish to claim conformance to "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" ([WCAG10]). While the techniques in this document should help people author HTML that conforms to "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0", these techniques are neither guarantees of conformance nor the only way an author might produce conforming content. ck2.2: just restates checkpoint ck3.1: give copious Math example ck4.1: specific technical requirement (use 'lang') ======================================== ===== UAAG ======================================== UAAG 1.0 (4th LC, 8/2002) ---- (ch.1) This document specifies requirements that, if satisfied by user agent developers, will lower barriers to accessibility... A separate document, entitled "Techniques for User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" (the "Techniques document" from here on) [UAAG10-TECHS], provides suggestions and examples of how each checkpoint might be satisfied. (ch.2) Each checkpoint contains... * The checkpoint title. This title is not a requirement, but rather is a phrase to help readers remember an important requirement made by the checkpoint provision(s). (Informative) ... * A link to the Techniques document [UAAG10-TECHS] for more information about the checkpoint: rationale, who benefits, example techniques, references, and more. (Informative) * A list of one or more checkpoint provisions, which embody the requirements of the checkpoint. These requirements must be satisfied by the user agent for conformance. (Normative) * Techniques that are sufficient for satisfying all or part of a checkpoint. (Normative when present) * Normative inclusions and exclusions. These are qualifications about what is required (inclusion) or is not required (exclusion) to satisfy the checkpoint.... *Notes about the checkpoint (beginning with the word "Note"). The notes clarify the scope of the checkpoint through further description, examples, cross references, and commentary. (Informative when present) UAAG Techniques ----- (abstract) This document provides techniques for satisfying the checkpoints defined in "User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" [UAAG10]. The techniques listed in this document are not required for conformance to the Guidelines. These techniques are not necessarily the only way of satisfying the checkpoint, nor are they a definitive set of requirements for satisfying a checkpoint. (ch.2) Each checkpoint definition is followed by one or more of the following: ... Example techniques: Some techniques to illustrate how a user agent might satisfy the requirements of the checkpoint. ... Doing more: Techniques to achieve more than what is required by the checkpoint; ======================================== ===== ATAG ======================================== ATAG 1.0 (Recommendation 2/2000) ---- (ch-1) A separate document, entitled "Techniques for Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" [ATAG10-TECHS], provides suggestions and examples of how each checkpoint might be satisfied. The techniques in [ATAG10-TECHS] are informative examples only. Other strategies may be used to satisfy the checkpoints in addition to, or in place of, those discussed in [ATAG10-TECHS]. (ch-1.1)A link to a section of "Techniques for Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" [ATAG10-TECHS] where implementations and examples of the checkpoint are discussed...Each checkpoint is intended to be specific enough that it can be verified, while being sufficiently general to allow developers the freedom to use the most appropriate strategies to satisfy it. ATAG 1.0 Techniques (W3C Note, 5/2002) ---- (abstract) It includes suggested techniques, sample strategies in deployed tools, and references to other accessibility resources (such as platform-specific software accessibility guidelines) that provide additional information on how a tool may satisfy each checkpoint. (SoTD) This document is a W3C Note, published as an informative appendix to "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0". This document updates the previous version of this Note but does not represent consensus within the WAI Authoring Tools Guidelines (AUWG) Working Group, nor within W3C. This document is likely to change and should not be cited as reference material or anything other than "work in progress". The WAI Interest Group was invited to review the material that led to this version of the document. The Working Group expects to update this document in response to queries raised by implementors of the Guidelines, for example, to cover new technologies. Suggestions for additional techniques are welcome. (ch-1) Note: The techniques in this document are merely suggestions; they are not required for conformance to "Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0". These techniques are not necessarily the only way of satisfying the checkpoint, nor are they necessarily a definitive set of requirements for satisfying a checkpoint.