[2.4] Proposals for 2.4

Hello everyone,

I have formulated some proposals of what to do about 2.4 and the issues in
Bugzilla for 2.4. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion about this on
the list and during the last teleconference. I have tried to incorporate all
the ideas and suggestions into my proposals.

See my previous summary for a more detailed discussion of the issues
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0169.html)

Attached you will find the HTML version of these proposals and an
HTML-document with the proposals for the examples.

Yvette Hoitink
Heritas, Enschede, the Netherlands
E-mail: y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl
WWW: http://www.heritas.nl 

***Proposals for 2.4***

==Issues that can be closed by explaining to the original authors==

434 (decided last telecon), 564, 859, 1169, 1395, 1387, 1392, 1393, 1394

==Issues that can be closed by making changes to the examples ==

See attached document with examples.

510, 676, 946, 948, 1389, 1392

Added example of logical reading order (from general techniques) as John
Slatin suggested. This addresses part of issue 946.

Added example about different ways to find content. This addresses issue
1390.

Expanded example about scalable image with structure to make it clearer that
you need a technology that supports doing that and that this is about web
content. Also changed the example from bike to map so it makes more sense to
use such a technology. This addresses issue 510 and 1392.

Changed example about audio presentation. This addresses issue 948.

Deleted the word 'subtle' from example 1 to address issue 676



==Votes needed==

829, 1388, 1506, 1016, 1130, 1214, 1136, 1137, 1319, 808

What to do about SC about reading order? We have proposals to move it from
level 3 to level 1 and to delete it. This addresses issues 829, 1391, 1441.
The trend on the lists seems to go towards moving it to level 1. Wendy
suggested creating a broader SC for level 1. The rationale for this SC isn't
clear: some people think it's about reading order, others think it's about
allowing keyboard navigation. Becky points out that part of the problems
today come from the fact that AT don't fully understand CSS yet. Let's
discuss what to do, vote on a level and then create action items. 

Shall we delete SC1 "Structures and relationships within the content can be
programmatically determined." because that's covered by 1.3? This addresses
issue 1388.
Deleting this SC does create a problem with the 'who benefits' section as
there are a lot of benefits from this SC that involve the ability to find
content, orient yourself in it or navigate through it. What do we do with
the 2.4-specific benefits for providing structure and relationships if we
delete the SC from 2.4? 

Do we want to keep the benefit of jumping from header to header? Issue 808.
Becky feels it's too HTML specific and wonders if all web technologies have
the concept of headers. If not, action item to write a new benefit? 

Accept new wording of examples (see above)

New wording for 2.4 L3 SC2: "Blocks of repeated material are implemented so
that they can be bypassed by people who use assistive technology or who
navigate via keyboard or keyboard interface." Issue 1506.

Do we need a new SC for "a sitemap is needed if you cannot access every page
of the site from every other page of the site"? Issue 1016. Might conflict
with baseline-free assumption. John Slatin feels sitemap is an instance of
L2 SC 2 so doesn't need another criterion. If we decide to add an extra SC,
assign action item to formulate proposal.

Do we need another SC that requires explicit links to the most important
parts of the content or do we think this can be solved in techniques? The
discussion on the lists seems to favor solving this in techniques. Issue
1130, 1214 (skiplink). If new SC, then we action item to formulate proposed
SC. If techniques, then action item to formulate proposed technique.

Do we want a SC to identify 'necessary' links? Issue 1136. If so, action
item to formulate proposal.

Do we want a SC to require labelling referenced units (for example, give
frames a title-attribute). Issue 1319. If yes, action item to formulate
proposal.

Should we delete L3 SC3 - "Images have structure that users can access"
because it assumes a baseline? Issue 1507 

What shall we do about "Text is divided into paragraphs"? Prompted by 1137
and 1393. John Slatin raised the interesting point of how dividing text into
paragraphs helps users find content, orient themselves in it or navigate
through it. Doesn't this SC belong in principle 3? Becky feels this SC is
covered by "Structures and relationships within the content can be
programmatically determined". Dividing text into paragraphs could be a
technique for that. What to do: leave it, delete it or move it to principle
3?

"Header" or "Heading"? The terms seem to be synonymous and we use both terms
in our documents. For clarity, I think we should chose 1. 



==Action items==

955, 1389, 1390, 1503, 1504, 1508, 808

Create techniques and/or guide text for creating tables of content and/or
sitemaps that include information about presentation modes (issue 955)

Clarify the use of 'document' either through a definition (of document) or a
Note: related to the criterion.

Create techniques for effective use of metadata

Create new baseline-free wording for "Documents that have five or more
section headings and are presented as a single delivery unit include a table
of contents with links to important sections of the document. " Issue 1503.

Create new baseline-free wording for "There is more than one way to locate
the content of each delivery unit, including but not limited to link groups,
a site map, site search or other navigation mechanism.". Issue 1504.

Explore impact of not setting a baseline for 2.4 L3 SC 5 & 6. Issue 1508

Formulate new proposal for generic version of 'text is divided into
paragraphs' and 'documents are divided into hierarchical sections and
subsections'. Issue 1137. 



==On ice==

Part of 1214 (WAI group is discussing harmonization)

==Reassign to other guideline or 'problem domain'==

1131, 1132, 1394

3.1 has a success criteria that deals with understandability of links that
we could link techniques to. Propose to move ssue 1131 over to that.

We might need a new success criterion to provide a progressive complexity
for both site and page content, so that people with different abilities may
be able to obtain information from the same Web site. Belongs in 3.1
instead. Issue 1132. John Slatin is working on a proposal that covers this
topic.

Prompted by 1394: We need to add additional paragraph about WCAG does not
guarantee accessibility to the intro. A new issue was created for this so
it's no longer a 2.4 concern.