Re: Proposal for Guideline 2 as well as a proposal to trim WCAG 2.0 to 3 guidelines

Jason,

I'm fine with this proposal.  I will use it as the basis of the next 
draft.  Note that I will tweak the language for consistency, particularly 
the text of the guidelines.

--wendy

At 12:56 AM 1/7/01 , 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.
>

--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
madison, wi usa
tel: +1 608 663 6346
/--

Received on Monday, 8 January 2001 11:29:09 UTC