Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines (won't william be glad?)

Lest I be accused of having become a polemicist, I would here like to
amplify my own proposal a little more, though it is still very much in the
form of an outline:

Guideline 1: Device-independence.

1.1 Text equivalents.
1.2 Synchronization of text equivalents with auditory/visual content.
1.3 Auditory descriptions.
1.4 Exposure of structural and semantic distinctions in markup or in a
data model.
1.5 Logical separation of content and structure from presentation.
1.6 Device-independence of input event handlers.

Guideline 2: Design content to facilitate browsing, navigation and user
interaction.
2.1 Consistent interaction/navigation mechanisms.
2.2 Avoid content that interferes with the user's ability to navigate.
2.3 Provide user control over time-based events or content that introduces
unexpected changes in context.
2.4 Provide a range of search options for various skill levels and
preferences.

Guideline 3: Design content for ease of comprehension.
3.1 Consistency of presentation.
3.2 Emphasize structure through presentation.
3.3 Use the clearest and simplest language appropriate to the content.
3.4 Use auditory/graphical presentations where these facilitate
comprehension.
3.5 Summarize complex or highly structured information.
3.6 Define key terms.
3.7 Provide structures that divide information into small, logically
organised units.

Guideline 4: Compatibility.
4.1 Use markup and style languages, API's and protocols in accordance with
applicable specifications.
4.2 Ensure that content is compatible with assistive technologies and
that, so far as is practicable, it is backward compatible.


Here, I have incorporated what I regard as the best and most innovative of
Wendy's ideas into what I hope is a better organised structure. One point
worth noting is that, instead of requiring the use of style languages as
such, I have made the more general point that structure/semantics should
be represented separately from presentation, whether this be achieved by
way of a style language, or by, for example, alternative versions of the
content (for example, a structural tree which is logically distinct from,
and provided along side of, page descriptions, as in PDF, or XSL with the
ROLE and SOURCE attributes). The direct reference to style languages is,
perhaps, more specific than is necessary to specify the requirement.

I welcome comments, polemics and, above all, thoughtful suggestions.

Received on Sunday, 7 January 2001 00:56:53 UTC