Re: Post #1 of Proposal for a REstructuring and ReOrienting the WCAG 2.0 Guidelines

Gregg's thoughts on the sub-group's response

IBM Accessibility Center
(512) 838-9903,
Internal Tie Line 678-9903,
----- Forwarded by Andi Snow-Weaver/Austin/IBM on 04/03/2003 10:26 AM -----
                      Vanderheiden             To:       Andi Snow-Weaver/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,,                        
                      u>                       cc:,                                              
                                               Subject:  RE: WCAG F-2-F March 24, 2003: Conformance scheme sub-group                   
                      03/31/2003 07:13                                                                                                 
                      Please respond to                                                                                                

Notes below marked GV:

Conformance scheme groups:

   1. Interoperability and compatibilty with accessibility aids, features,
   and services.
   2. Flexible presentation that accomodates more people using mainstream
   user agents, without requiring accessibility aids, features, or
   3. Specialized design to target a particular population or populations.
GV:  Good
We should however add the following to the #3
  “  (Group  3  [or this group] would include both interoperability and
flexible presentation features)”

GV: Rationale:  the above grouping sounds like 3 different categories.  1
and 2 are unique and mutually exclusive.  But 3 contains both type 1 and
type 2 that are targeted toward specific audiences.  So we should note that
or people will start scratching their heads when they see type 3 items.

We started out thinking about rewording the checkpoints to be
"results-based" instead of "implementation-based"; i.e. the checkpoint will
describe the result, not how you implement it. This allows for the
implementation to be done by the author, a service, or the AT. We only
reworded checkpoint 1.1.

GV:  Good.

ACTION: Reword the other checkpoints to be results-based.

With the above conformance groups in mind, analysis of the checkpoints and
success criteria in the current working draft yielded the following:

Guideline 1 - Perceivable. Ensure that all intended function and
information can be presented in form(s) that can be perceived by any user -
except those aspects that cannot be expressed in words.

   Checkpoint 1.1 For all non-text content that can be expressed in words,
   provide a text equivalent of the function or information the non-text
   content was intended to convey.

      Group 1 and reworded as:

For all non-text content that can be expressed in words GV: (or whose
result can be expressed concisely in words), a text equivalent of the
function or information the non-text content was intended to convey is
available to GV: all individuals, assistive aids, features, or services.

GV:  I think we need to leave open that the text would be available to
their regular browsers as well.

   Checkpoint 1.2 Provide synchronized media equivalents for time-dependent
      Group 1: Closed captioning
      Group 2: Open captioning
GV:  Are we recommending open captioning?   I would omit or put in Group 3.

   Checkpoint 1.3 Make all content and structure available independently of
      Group 1
GV:   Hmmmm  I don’t think we should do this.   I think we should ONLY say
it should be machine readable.  Is there any other purpose to separating
them?  (and it isn’t necessarily required to do it for that).

   Checkpoint 1.4 Emphasize structure through presentation(s), positioning,
   and labels.
      Group 2

   Checkpoint 1.5 Ensure that foreground content is easily differentiable
   from background for both auditory and visual presentations.
      Group 1: Ability to turn off visual and audio backgrounds
 GV:  too much????  Necessary??   Group 3??
     Group 2: Visual or audio background is easily distinguishable from
      the foreground content. <conflicts with Group 3 criteria for audio>
GV:  Easily by people?  With how much vision?   (don’t see any conflict)
      Group 3: there are no background pictures or patterns behind
      foreground content
GV:  Need to change the last word to TEXT or all pictures will fail.
      Group 3: background sounds are at least ?? db lower than foreground
      content. <conflicts with Group 2 criteria for audio>
GV:  don’t see any conflict

   Checkpoint 1.6 Provide information needed for unambiguous decoding of
   the characters and words in the content.
      Group 1: unicode
      Group 1: specifying the language for text that is not in the primary
      language of the page
GV:  too much?  I think these are techniques which are not necessarily
necessary--- and so should NOT be in guidelines.  Much of this is already
machine determinable
      Group 1: identify abbreviations and acronyms
GV:  Ditto
      Group 1: a standard mechanism is provided for disambiguation of
      symbols such as diacritic marks.
GV:  Ditto
      Group 1: the primary natural language of the content is identified at
      the page level
GV:  Ditto
      Group 2: text that is displayed to everybody has diacritic marks in

Guideline 2 - Operable. Ensure that the interface elements in the content
are operable by any user.

   Checkpoint 2.1 Ensure that all of the functionality of the content is
   operable through character input to the content or user agent.
      Group 1: Operable via through character input
      Group 2: Hot key definitions "visible" to all users.

   Checkpoint 2.2 Allow users to control any time limits on their reading,
   interaction or responses unless control is not possible due to the
   nature of real-time events or competition.
      Group 1: time limits (with exceptions in the current draft) are
      controllable GV:  directly or
by the assistive aids, features, or services
      Group 2: time limits (with exceptions in the current draft) are
      controllable by the user
      Group 3: a duplicate version of the site is available that does not
      have any time limits
GV:  Kill the word “duplicate”

   Checkpoint 2.3 Avoid causing the screen to flicker.
      Group 1: Ability to turn off the flicker.
GV:  change “turn off” to “prevent” or “pre-emptively turn off”

      Group 2: No flicker.

GV:  I think we should rethink a number of the items from here on down and
combine and Reorg them.

Guideline 3 - Navigable. Facilitate content orientation and navigation

   Checkpoint 3.1 Provide structure within content.
      Group 1: linear reading order that is consistent with the visual
      reading order <testability may be an issue here>
      Group 2: <didn't really specify what these were. said there may be
      some things about photorealistic diagrams and vector diagrams>

   Checkpoint 3.2 Provide multiple methods to explore sites that are more
   than two layers deep.
      Group 2: sites that have more than two layers have at least one other
      method for exploration besides using the links on the home page. (A
      home page and one layer of pages linked off of it would be two
      layers)a link to the alternate exploration method(s) is provided on
      the home page.
      Group 3: <didn't define this. I think it was an idea that you might
      tune the navigation of a site for a particular population or

   Checkpoint 3.3 Use consistent but not necessarily identical
      Group 2:

   Checkpoint 3.4 Provide consistent and predictable responses to user
      Group 1: Don't do anything that prevents the user from being able to
      turn off extreme changes in context.
      Group 2:

   Checkpoint 3.5 Provide methods to minimize error and provide graceful
      Group 1: Do reasonable error handling.
      Group 2: checks for misspelled words are applied and correct
      spellings are suggested when text entry is required.
      Group 2: if an error is detected, feedback is provided to the user
      identifying the error.
      Group 2: errors are identified specifically and suggestions for
      correction are provided where possible
      Group 2: where consequences are significant and time-response is not
      important, one of the following is true
      Group 2: actions are reversible where possible
      Group 2: where actions are not reversible, actions are checked for
      errors in advance.
      Group 2: where not reversible, and not checkable, a confirmation is
      asked before acceptance
      Group 3: lists that are optimized for one group can be detrimental to

Guideline 4 - Understandable. Make it as easy as possible to understand the
content and controls.

   Checkpoint 4.1 Write as clearly and simply as is [appropriate /
   possible] for the purpose of the content.
      Group 1: <ACTION: Mark Urban. If AT doesn't know what it is, point to
      something that will tell it.>
      Group 2:
      Group 3: Use a constrained or specialized vocabulary.

   Checkpoint 4.2 Supplement text with non-text content.
      Group 2:
      Group 3: Symbol language.

   Checkpoint 4.3 Annotate complex, abbreviated, or unfamiliar information
   with summaries and definitions.
      Group 1: Make them available to AT
      Group 2: displaying to user, visibly linking to glossaries

Guideline 5 - Robust. Use Web technologies that maximize the ability of the
content to work with current and future accessibility technologies and user

   Checkpoint 5.1 Use technologies according to specification.
      Group 1: TBD
      Group 2: TBD

   Checkpoint 5.2 Ensure that technologies relied upon by the content are
   declared and widely available.
      <Not needed under new comformance grouping scheme. Definition of
      group 2>

   Checkpoint 5.3 Choose technologies that are designed to support
      <Not needed>

   Checkpoint 5.4 Ensure that user interfaces are accessible or provide an
   accessible alternative.
      <Not needed>

IBM Accessibility Center
(512) 838-9903,
Internal Tie Line 678-9903,

Received on Thursday, 3 April 2003 11:28:23 UTC