Re: Increasing the testability of prominence in ATAG2

Hi all,

After today's call there are some changes to the "prominence" proposal:

---

(1) The definition.
Changed the e.g. for items:

prominence
A heuristic measure of how likely users are to notice items (E.G. single 
controls, groups of controls, text messages) in a user interface that 
they are operating. Prominence is affected by numerous factors, 
including: the number of navigation steps required, the reading order 
position, visual properties (e.g., size, spacing, color), and even the 
modality of use (e.g., mouse vs. keyboard use). For purposes of 
conformance to ATAG 2.0, item A is considered to be *at least as 
prominent* as item B if:
* (a) both items occur in the same item container (e.g., menu for menu
items, list for list items, dialog box for text boxes)
* (b) item A is highlighted if item B is highlighted.
* (c) item A occurs higher in the reading order or immediately follows
item B.

---

(2a) Rewording B.1.1.2, B.1.1.4, B.1.1.6 for clarity:
UNCHANGED FROM EARLIER PROPOSAL

B.1.1.2 Author Choice of Technologies (Level A): If the authoring tool
provides authors with Web content technology options, THEN ANY
*ACCESSIBLE technology* (WCAG Level A) options THAT ARE SUITABLE FOR THE
TASK ARE *AT LEAST AS PROMINENT* AS ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS. (Level A)

(2b) Add this sentence to the end of the definition of "Technology":

An *accessible technology* is a technology that may be used in a way
that is "accessibility supported" (For more information on
"accessibility supported", see WCAG 2.0).

---

(3) Rewording B.2.1.1, B.2.1.2, B.2.1.3:
REWORDED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WIZARD-STYLE PROMPTING ETC. - REMOVED 
"PROMINENCE" CLAUSE

B.2.1.1 Guide Accessible (Level A): If THE AUTHORING TOOL AUTOMATICALLY 
PROMPTS AUTHORS FOR any information as content is being added or updated 
(e.g., by an image modification dialog), then AUTOMATIC PROMPTS ARE ALSO 
INCLUDED for any accessibility information required for that content to 
meet WCAG Level A (Level A).

---

(4) Rewording B.2.5.3:
UNCHANGED FROM EARLIER PROPOSAL

B.2.5.3 Template Selection Mechanism: If authors are provided with a
template selection mechanism, then (Level A):
(a) the selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of
templates (if known), AND
(b) any accessible template options ARE *AT LEAST AS PROMINENT* AS other
TEMPLATE options.

---

(5) Rewording B.2.5.7:
UNCHANGED FROM EARLIER PROPOSAL

B.2.5.7 Pre-Authored Content Selection Mechanism: If authors are
provided with a selection mechanism for pre-authored content other than
templates (e.g., clip art gallery, widget repository, design themes),
then (Level AA):
(a) the selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of the
pre-authored content (if known), AND
(b) any accessible options ARE *AT LEAST AS PROMINENT* AS other
PRE-AUTHORED CONTENT options.

---

(6) Rewording the rationale of B.3.1:
"IS" added

Guideline B.3.1 Rationale: When authors are learning a new authoring
tool, they may find and learn to use the first authoring action they
encounter that achieves their intended outcome. Since they may be
unaware of the issue of accessibility, it IS preferable that accessible
content be an additional unintended outcome, rather than inaccessible
content.

---

(7) Rewording B.3.1.1:
UNCHANGED FROM EARLIER PROPOSAL

B.3.1.1 Accessible Options Prominent: If authors are provided with
multiple options for an authoring task, options that will result in
content conforming to *WCAG* Level A ARE *AT LEAST AS PROMINENT* AS
OPTIONS THAT WILL NOT. (Level A)

---

(8) Minor edit to B.3.3.4:
UNCHANGED FROM EARLIER PROPOSAL

B.3.3.4 At Least as Prominent: Accessible content support features are
*at least as prominent* [DEL] as comparable features related to other
types of Web content problems (e.g., invalid markup, syntax errors,
spelling and grammar errors). (Level AA)



Cheers,
Jan













Jan Richards wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> After discussing "prominence" a bit more with Tim and getting some 
> feedback from one of his colleagues, I have a few proposals for cleaning 
> up the way we use "prominence" and making it more testable:
> 
> (TIM: I'm sorry to see you regrets from the call, your thoughts on this 
> proposal would be most appreciated)
> 
> ---
> 
> (1) Modifying the definition, itself:
> 
> prominence
> A heuristic measure of how likely users are to notice items (controls or 
> groups of controls) in a user interface that they are operating. 
> Prominence is affected by numerous factors, including: the number of 
> navigation steps required, the reading order position, visual properties 
> (e.g., size, spacing, colour), and even the modality of use (e.g., mouse 
> vs. keyboard use). For purposes of conformance to ATAG 2.0, item A is 
> considered to be *at least as prominent* as item B if:
> * (a) both items occur in the same item container (e.g., menu for menu 
> items, list for list items, dialog box for text boxes)
> * (b) item A is highlighted if item B is highlighted.
> * (c) item A occurs higher in the reading order or immediately follows 
> item B.
> 
> ---
> 
> (2a) Rewording B.1.1.2, B.1.1.4, B.1.1.6 for clarity:
> 
> B.1.1.2 Author Choice of Technologies (Level A): If the authoring tool 
> provides authors with Web content technology options, THEN ANY 
> *ACCESSIBLE technology* (WCAG Level A) options THAT ARE SUITABLE FOR THE 
> TASK ARE *AT LEAST AS PROMINENT* AS ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS. (Level A)
> 
> (2b) Add this sentence to the end of the definition of "Technology":
> 
> An *accessible technology* is a technology that may be used in a way 
> that is "accessibility supported" (For more information on 
> "accessibility supported", see WCAG 2.0).
> 
> ---
> 
> (3) Rewording B.2.1.1, B.2.1.2, B.2.1.3:
> 
> B.2.1.1 Guide Accessible (Level A): If authors are prompted for any 
> information as content is being added or updated (e.g., by an image 
> modification dialog), then:
> (a) PROMPTS ARE INCLUDED for any accessibility information required for 
> that content to meet WCAG Level A (Level A)
> (b) THE ACCESSIBILITY PROMPTS ARE *AT LEAST AS PROMINENT*.
> 
> ---
> 
> (4) Rewording B.2.5.3:
> 
> B.2.5.3 Template Selection Mechanism: If authors are provided with a 
> template selection mechanism, then (Level A):
> (a) the selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of 
> templates (if known), AND
> (b) any accessible template options ARE *AT LEAST AS PROMINENT* AS other 
> TEMPLATE options.
> 
> ---
> 
> (5) Rewording B.2.5.7:
> 
> B.2.5.7 Pre-Authored Content Selection Mechanism: If authors are 
> provided with a selection mechanism for pre-authored content other than 
> templates (e.g., clip art gallery, widget repository, design themes), 
> then (Level AA):
> (a) the selection mechanism indicates the accessibility status of the 
> pre-authored content (if known), AND
> (b) any accessible options ARE *AT LEAST AS PROMINENT* AS other 
> PRE-AUTHORED CONTENT options.
> 
> ---
> 
> (6) Rewording the rationale of B.3.1:
> 
> Guideline B.3.1 Rationale: When authors are learning a new authoring 
> tool, they may find and learn to use the first authoring action they 
> encounter that achieves their intended outcome. Since they may be 
> unaware of the issue of accessibility, it preferable that accessible 
> content be an additional unintended outcome, rather than inaccessible 
> content.
> 
> ---
> 
> (7) Rewording B.3.1.1:
> 
> B.3.1.1 Accessible Options Prominent : If authors are provided with 
> multiple options for an authoring task, options that will result in 
> content conforming to *WCAG* Level A ARE *AT LEAST AS PROMINENT* AS 
> OPTIONS THAT WILL NOT. (Level A)
> 
> ---
> 
> (8) Minor edit to B.3.3.4:
> 
> B.3.3.4 At Least as Prominent: Accessible content support features are 
> *at least as prominent* [DEL] as comparable features related to other 
> types of Web content problems (e.g., invalid markup, syntax errors, 
> spelling and grammar errors). (Level AA)
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Jan
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Jan Richards, M.Sc.
User Interface Design Lead
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC)
Faculty of Information (i-school)
University of Toronto

   Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca
   Web:   http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca
   Phone: 416-946-7060
   Fax:   416-971-2896

Received on Monday, 9 March 2009 21:21:16 UTC