- From: <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 14:00:22 -0600
- To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
The WCAG checkpoints could fall into one of three types of checking
Proposed rewrite:
To "check for" an accessibility problem means that it is
identified by the tool in at least one of the following ways:
a) Where it is possible to identify a problem from syntax, the
tool must automate this check. For example, check for the
presence of the "alt" attribute on the HTML IMG element.
b) Where it is possible to identify a problem mechanically but
not directly from syntax, the tool should automate this
check. For example, calculate whether two colors do not
provide sufficient contrast when compared to user preferences.
When the tool's calculations are best guesses (e.g.,
linearization of a page), prompt the user to confirm the
results.
c) Otherwise, prompt the user to verify accessibility. For
instance,
if an image has an associated long description, ask the user
to confirm that the description is appropriate for the
image. Subtle, rather than extensive, prompting is more likely
to be effective in encouraging the user to verify accessibility.
- Ian
Those WCAG checkpoints that fit into a):
1.1
Those WCAG checkpoints that fit into b):
1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 2.2
Those WCAG checkpoints that fit into c):
1.1, 1.5, 2.1
Regards,
Phill Jenkins,
Received on Tuesday, 7 December 1999 15:04:38 UTC