Re: Minutes from 21 December 2000 WCAG WG telecon

At 05:08 PM 12/21/00 -0500, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
>Action WL: propose weeded version of guideline 3 checkpoints.

First of all most of this stuff is in fact more properly included under 
checkpoint 2.1. Using markup language according to specification 
necessarily requires implementing what are now 3.1, 3.4, 3.8, 3.9 and by 
inference 3.2.

If this seems correct it might be best/doable/necessary to make them 
explanations of 2.1 rather than as actual checkpoints. They are general 
enough to inform the "markup languages" with accessibility concepts. IOW 
these are the "how" of interpreting the bare 
syntax/intent/elements/attributes/+ of said languages.

The remaining 3.x checkpoints then cover what is meant by the needfuls of 
achieving "ease of comprehension" and again may well not rise to the level 
of checkpoints? 3.3, 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7 are all items that might be in 
Strunk & White or J. Nielsen. They are important but are mostly techniques 
for achieving the goals of the guideline - mostly being highly subjective 
and requiring a certain trust of the author's 
intent/understanding/willingness/+. 3.10 and 3.11 are a bit different. They 
are somehow "mechanistics" and again more advisory/explanatory than 
"proper" checkpoints.

Gregg's point that these were all "important great things to do" advisories 
rather than checkpoints pertains to (almost?) all of them. They are often 
easy to implement, e.g. the author should be able to objectively judge if 
she's "Placed distinguishing information at the beginning" or "Divide large 
blocks of information" but an evaluation of whether "Use the clearest and 
simplest language appropriate for a site's content" has been achieved isn't 
always so obvious as is the case with when "Supplement text with graphic or 
auditory presentations where they will facilitate comprehension of the 
content" might apply.

Throwing this mess on the table without furnishing a clean-up rag may be 
rude/inconsiderate but we have to address the underlying notion first: do 
(m)any of these "rise to the level of checkpoints?" To me they just don't 
seem parallel to "Use style languages" or "Use markup or a data model to 
provide the logical structure of content" - and especially all the 
checkpoints in GL 1. Of course I'm not arguing that we mustn't advise 
"placing distinguishing information at the beginning", etc. but 
structurally it would seem sounder to relegate much of this to a different 
category than actual checkpoints?

Is that worth tuppence?

--

Love.
                 ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE

Received on Friday, 22 December 2000 11:55:52 UTC