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

I am not sure if there is a need to seperate out compatibility - it is very
closely related to device-independence. But somehow it feels right to me like
this, so I would be happy either way. If we are going to have a "use W3C
technologies where available", or "use the most accessible technology
available for a task", would that go in guideline 4?

Charles McCN

On Sun, 7 Jan 2001, Jason White wrote:

  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.





-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
until 6 January 2001 at:
W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

Received on Sunday, 7 January 2001 07:35:08 UTC