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

comment on '2.3 Provide user control over time-based events or content that
introduces unexpected changes in context'

in my mind i need some clarification that this permits alternatives methods
to be read.  for example, if this is a applet or a javascript ticker, then
is an an alternative link acceptable.  a curious cicumstance would be if the
feed was real time.  could the author have the ability or knowledge to
automatically update a separate file every ten minutes?  this may be more of
a technique issue where an example may be needed, but would like to raise
the question.

comment on '1.2 Synchronization of text equivalents with auditory/visual
content'
do we need to say where applicable here, as the author may not have the
funds to do this but could provide a text file.

comment on '2.4 Provide a range of search options for various skill levels
and preferences.'
this has a cost and impact. many sites are hosted as co-located (where they
do not own their own servers OR they may not have the funds to purchase this
option).  They are at the mercy of the tools that the web host offers and
they may not do so or there may be a cost.  again words to something like
this may need to be in the techniques.

comment on '3.6 Define key terms'
how about key terms and abbreviations?

comment on 'Guideline 4: Compatibility.'
how are we handling companies that have made a concious effort to set a
minimum standard for browser compatibiltiy?  these decisions are normally
driven by cost and security - especially where secure socket layer is used
(SSL).  do we have an alternate method for people to access information?  do
we need to address security here and state that there may be overidding
reasons and justifications where a call center may not be avaialble to help
someone.

overall my i think this is a great step forward and need to look at teh cost
impact and help those people who do not have the funds nor technical means
available to satisfy each line item in the quideline.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason White" <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>
To: "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2001 12:56 AM
Subject: 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 10:01:26 UTC