- From: Ben Caldwell <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 21:10:57 -0500
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <000101c253b8$4eacf1c0$6401a8c0@ippiii7501>
Hi, As an introduction to our discussion of what the Technology-specific Checklists layer of WCAG 2.0 might look like, Paul, Wendy and I have been working on a few sample pages and collecting issues and ideas for the group to review as we begin the process of making decisions about how the checklist should take shape. The checklists, which are described in the second section of "How to read this document" in the latest draft, are intended to "provide information on what is required when using different technologies in order to meet the WCAG 2.0 Working Draft access guidelines." Much of the information included below is a compilation of ideas and discussions that began in small group work at the July face to face in Linz. In case anyone is interested in reviewing the discussion that took place there, I've added links to the original draft pages that were presented at the end of the face to face to the minutes, which are available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2002/07/f2f-minutes.html#subgroup-checklist. Many thanks to Paul, Bengt, Avi, Christian and Wendy for help in brainstorming and working through these ideas. Issues and questions: * In addition to understanding how to succeed in meeting the guidelines, how can this checklist also describe how and where techniques or technologies might fail? For example, should the document make it clear that, for a technology that by definition can not address a specific checkpoint, make a statement asserting that meeting a checkpoint in a given technology is not possible? Some suggestions for addressing this issue include: 1. only generate techniques documents for technologies that meet WCAG 2.0 at the minimum level 2. include a "not possible" category that describes how some techniques or technologies may fail and suggest alternatives 3. create an other technology that allows for newer technologies and techniques to be used in meeting a checkpoint. That way, the message isn't that authors shouldn't use a technology. Instead, it simply means that we don't have techniques yet and provides an opportunity for author to explain how the checkpoint was addressed. * How much ongoing work will the group be able to do on this layer (and the techniques documents) after WCAG 2.0 becomes a recommendation? * If the checklists include all of the checkpoints (21 in latest draft), success criteria (80 in latest draft) and techniques (there will likely be multiple techniques for each success criteria) in one place, the document is likely to become quite long. How can we best optimize the checklists so that they are optimally usable and minimally overwhelming? * At this point, it's not clear exactly how the techniques relate to whether or not an author has passed or failed a given success criteria. For example, where 5 techniques exist to address a single checkpoint, it's not clear how the techniques would be prioritized. Is it possible that in some cases one technique will be preferred/recommended over another given the current state of user agent support? Will it be possible to insert something that, for example, says you will have passed a success criterion if you have applied x number of techniques below? * For level 2 assurance type success criteria (e.g. the content has been reviewed and .), should a unique set of techniques be included for each? Would all of the review requirements of this type be addressed with the same set of techniques or would these recurring techniques be described elsewhere? Also, does it make sense to include a space for a reviewer/author to document what they've done or observed related to the review process? * Checkpoint 3.3 was included in the sample checklist drafts so that we could take a look at how a checkpoint that includes additional ideas might look. Does it make sense to include the ideas here or is it likely that each idea will need its own list of techniques? * The drafts currently don't link into the techniques documents because there's nothing to link to at this point in time. When we do add links, do we want the entire rule element that will be pulled from the techniques to become a link or should we consider including a techniques numbering system and provide shorter links at the front end as we have with checkpoints and guidelines? Draft pages: * An example of a basic checklist layout is available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2002/08/checklist_proposal_example1.htm. Though there are a number of areas where information is missing, not yet linked in, or not yet available, it illustrates how we might handle different types of checkpoints and success criteria in checklist form and puts forth some ideas for addressing some of the issues described above. * An alternate example, available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2002/08/checklist_proposal_example2.htm, illustrates how the checklist may be presented in a more block-level organization. This layout provides some more explicit grouping of success criteria under their respective checkpoints as well as changes the order in which the information is presented by presenting the techniques available for addressing a particular success criteria before querying the user for pass/fail decisions. Additionally, this layout provides additional space for an author or reviewer to include notes as to how a success criteria passed, failed, or did not apply. Next steps: * Paul has been working with some of the ideas surrounding creating static and interactive renderings of the checklist document and will be posting a follow-up note describing some of the issues and ideas we've addressed thus far. * Wendy will create a page to add to the above collection of links that will show how an author might utilize the checklists to evaluate a page or site. * A number of organizational changes will need to be made to the current working draft in order to effectively refer to individual success criteria. * Once we have consensus on how the checklists will take shape, a transformation to automate the process of pulling the appropriate information from the guidelines and techniques documents will need to be developed so that we can easily update the checklist as each source documents evolves. * We'd also like to tie in some of the work that is being done at W3C in the internationalization group regarding implementation guidelines to generate more dynamic views of the checklist. Richard Ishida, who is a W3C team member and has had some experience developing implementation guidelines for Xerox has been sharing some of his philosophies about creating checklists with us recently and we're hoping to collaborate further with him to explore some ideas for creating document views that are somewhat more interactive and flexible. An example of this might be to utilize an expanding/collapsing mechanism that would allow users to drill down through the checklist, exposing, for example techniques for a given success criteria one at a time. Discussion on this topic is on the Agenda for the September 5 Telecon. Thanks, -Ben -- Ben Caldwell | <mailto:caldwell@trace.wisc.edu> caldwell@trace.wisc.edu Trace Research and Development Center ( <http://trace.wisc.edu> http://trace.wisc.edu)
Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2002 22:14:39 UTC