Re: Checkpoint 2.3

There is a difference between my original proposal and Kynn's amendment
which ought to be considered further: Kynn uses the imperative mode in the
sentences that list the various structural and semantic features required
to be defined in markup or a data model. I, by contrast, simply listed the
relevant features (or properties) themselves in declarative sentences. If
the imperative mode is preferred, then shouldn't one divide the list into
separate checkpoints? It might be confusing to have a checkpoint which
includes a list of imperatives.

Here is another attempt at a list, incorporating Kynn's ideas and some of
my own:

<ul>
<li>The division of the content into hierarchies of sections and
subsections, as appropriate to its type. For example, a book may be
divided into parts, chapters, paragraphs etc., a multimedia presentation
into acts, scenes etc., or an image into the distinct objects which it
depicts.
<li>Groups or sets of related items. Examples include bulleted lists and
groups of user interface controls. Each item should be separately
identified, as should any logically organised sections in which the items
are arranged.
<li>Labels, headings and titles. These should be explicitly associated, in
the markup or data model, with the sections of content to which they
apply.
<li>The natural language of text, particularly in multilingual content
where two or more languages are interspersed.
<li>The use of specialised notations which depart from the orthography or
character set used in a natural language. Examples include mathematical
notation and the text of computer program code.
</ul>

Let us keep working on this text to improve the list and its accompanying
examples. The idea of making general statements and then proceeding to
illustrate them with concrete examples has considerable merit, as it will
aid comprehension and clarify meaning. The generality in the initial
statements helps readers to think beyond the specific cases mentioned in
the illustrations (one of the principal shortcomings of WCAG 1.0 in this
area was its reliance on specific examples of logical structure, which
could not be extended to encompass new technologies such as SVG).

Note: All opinions expressed here are mine and are not presented in my
capacity as working group co-chair.

Received on Saturday, 28 October 2000 21:09:57 UTC