- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <po@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 23:48:31 -0600
- To: "'GL - WAI Guidelines WG'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
We have received several comments (12) about changes to ratings and classifications. Most of these request an upgrade of a guideline from "recommended" to "required." Based on the discussion from the meetings in Austin we pared the four level rating system (required, strongly recommended, recommended, helpful) down to a two level. This resulted in the following definitions of "required" and "recommended." [REQUIRED] Required for some groups of users to access the information on a page. [RECOMMENDED] Makes page easier to understand and use. Thus, in order for something to be rated as "required" a person would be unable to use a page at all if the guideline was not followed. It was also our understanding that the set of "required" recommendations should be kept as small as possible. Several suggestions for upgrades do not appear to meet this definition. For example, "Section 2 recommendation 5: Provide descriptive titles for all images used as links." As long as alt-text is provided for these images, users will be able to use these images as links. Descriptive titles will increase the usability. Therefore this would appear to be a [RECOMMENDED] item. There were also suggestions for "downgrading" several recommendations. For example, that until support of style sheets is "mature" it is unrealistic to require people to use them. All of the items are listed below with their comments. This is an excerpt from the new action log that we are using to keep track of discussions, resolutions, and to do's. This log will be found at www.w3.org/wai/gl/ A couple additional notes on the Ratings At one time we had talked of a 3 level system so that we could have 1 - REQUIRED: Required for some people to use 2 - HIGHLY RECOMMENDED: Very important item. Difficult for people to use without. 3 - RECOMMENDED: Makes page easier to understand and use. But the consensus was that we should try to get by with two levels so that is what we have now. So here is what we have at this point. Be sure to send in comments if you have them for any of the items. Issue 1 Current: Section 1 Recommendation 1: Use style sheets to position text and objects, etc... Discussion: I think it is not reasonnable to mark as "required" not using table to layout things, and to put it in the same bullet list as horrible things like converting text to image or using 1pixel gif. CSS2 positioning will provide better support for absolute position of boxes on page and there is already some floating properties in CSS1, but we're still far from the implicit-rescaling and the simple layout model provided by table rows and columns. Plus there are thousands of such tables out already and I don't see them moving to any kind of positioning anytime soon (W3C being on my top list). I would argue for talking about TABLE in the table section only, while exposing the details of making TABLE (even used for layout) accessible. More comments there. Action: Changed from required to recommended References: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/1997OctDec/0025.html Issue 2 Current: Section 2 recommendation 5: Provide descriptive titles for all images used as links. Discussion: Upgrade from [RECOMMENDED] to [REQUIRED]. Action: No action taken at this time. Does not meet the current definition of "Required." References: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/1998JanMar/0028.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/1998JanMar/0032.html Issue 3 Current: Section 8 Recommendation 1: Create link phrases that make sense when read out of context. Discussion: COMMENT 1: Change this item from Recommended to Required Even though this is something the browser could have a say about, and help with, I think we should make it a required as it is really a very important navigability issue COMMENT 2: Should this be required? Does it prevent the use of the page or only make it harder. Also, it is not always possible to create link phrases that make sense when read out of context is it? Action: No action taken at this time. References: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/1998JanMar/0032.html Issue 4 Current: Section 5 Recommendations 1,2,3. HTML structural elements are only used to convey meaning, not presentation. HTML presentational elements are only used to convey presentation, not meaning. Headings are nested properly and are not used for layout. Discussion: COMMENT 1: Change all 3 From Recommended to Required, they need to be at the same level as using SS at the beginning. COMMENT 2: If SS are moved from required to recommended, does this comment still apply? COMMENT 3: If these are not followed will the page be inaccessible or just less usable? I guess in some instances, not following this will make the page inaccessible (or at least very difficult to access). I could agree with moving this up, do others agree? COMMENT 4: Shouldn't item two say "HTML presentational elements are only used to convey presentation, not structure." since most all presentation contains some type of meaning? Action: Moved from recommended to required. Item two also edited to say structure. References: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/1998JanMar/0032.html Issue 5 Current: Section 5 Recommendation 4: Avoid blinking or scrolling text. Discussion: Make this one required. Action: Changed to required. References: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/1997OctDec/0025.html Issue 6 Current: Section 6 Recommendation 1. List structure and list items are correctly encoded. Discussion: From Recommended to Required - same thing as above. Action: Changed to required. References: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/1998JanMar/0032.html Issue 7 Discussion: COMMENT 1: In the Applet section, I think there is too much Required. Given that Java Accessibility is going to be a reality, we should force people to transcribe their applet in some other formats. COMMENT 2: Java Accessibilty is not now a reality and it is not clear when it will be (or how successful or how universal the accessibility will be) COMMENT 3: Not all browsers support Java Action: No action taken. References: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/1998JanMar/0032.html Issue 8 Current: Avoid using tables to arrange text documents in columns or otherwise layout a page. [New] Authors should use style sheets to position graphics and text. Discussion: I think it's OK to say that here after we've talked about TABLE markup. I'd make this one a Recommended though, just to be realistic. I think there are 3 kinds of table (not 2 as previously mentioned by others): the first kind if real "table", showing real table data (expense report, travel schedule, etc), the second and the third are table used for layout, but I'd made a difference between simple 2 to 3 columns table used for very simple layout and 5+ X 5+ cells table used as a mosaic/tile framework to build complete new 2D rendering engine. I think it's OK to allowed the simple layout kind, providing the linearization is trivial. Action: Broke this up into two guidelines. 1. [Required] Avoid using tables to arrange text documents in columns. 2. [Recommended] Avoid using tables to layout a page. [New] Authors should use style sheets to position text and graphics. Also note that further down in the list is: [Recommended] For tables of text and numbers, provide an alternative page that presents the table information in a linear fashion. These have all be grouped together. References: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/1997OctDec/0025.html Issue 9 Current: Provide a <NOFRAME> option for each <FRAMESET>. When using the <NOFRAME> option it is easiest to include all essential information on the bottom of the main frame. Title each frame.[New] Discussion: Adding a title is Required, adding a longdesc is recommended. Action: Made "title" required, "longdesc" was already recommended. References: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/1997OctDec/0025.html Issue 10 Current: Section 9 Recommendation 1: Ensure that your pages are readable and usable without frames. Discussion: COMMENT 1: From Required to Recommended, or an Interim. A browser issue really. COMMENT 2: <NOFRAME> does not seem to be an interim solution. Currently, if NOFRAME is not provided, the page is inaccessible (thus required). Action: No action taken at this time pending more discussion. References: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/1998JanMar/0032.html Issue 11 Current: Testing tips: To predict how one of today's screen readers might read your table, hold a piece of paper up to your monitor. As you slide the paper down the monitor, read the words above the line the paper creates as a sentence. Ask another person to listen as you read the page out loud without pausing for column gaps. Can he or she make sense out of what you have read? Discussion: COMMENT 1: Interim testing tips, it should say so. COMMENT 2: It says, "To predict how one of *today's* screen readers..." therefore would seem to already imply interim. (also testing tips are not otherwise labeled). Action: No action taken. References: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/1997OctDec/0025.html Issue 12 Current: Include a phone number, e-mail address, postal address or fax number for submitting information. Discussion: COMMENT 1: Interim. COMMENT 2: Isn't it always a good idea to include this information if someone is having problems accessing the information. Action: No action taken pending further comment. References: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/1997OctDec/0025.html Gregg and Wendy
Received on Thursday, 29 January 1998 00:56:56 UTC