- From: Andi Snow-Weaver <andisnow@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 10:27:39 -0600
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Gregg's thoughts on the sub-group's response
Andi
andisnow@us.ibm.com
IBM Accessibility Center
(512) 838-9903, http://www.ibm.com/able
Internal Tie Line 678-9903, http://w3.austin.ibm.com/~snsinfo
----- Forwarded by Andi Snow-Weaver/Austin/IBM on 04/03/2003 10:26 AM -----
Gregg
Vanderheiden To: Andi Snow-Weaver/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, cyns@microsoft.com,
<gv@trace.wisc.ed jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au, mark.urban@ittatc.org
u> cc: lguarino@adobe.com, wendy@w3.org
Subject: RE: WCAG F-2-F March 24, 2003: Conformance scheme sub-group
03/31/2003 07:13
AM
Please respond to
gv
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
services.
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
presentations.
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
presentation.
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
it.
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
GV: ECHO
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
populations.>
Checkpoint 3.3 Use consistent but not necessarily identical
presentation.
Group 2:
Checkpoint 3.4 Provide consistent and predictable responses to user
actions.
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
recovery.
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
others
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
agents.
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
accessibility.
<Not needed>
Checkpoint 5.4 Ensure that user interfaces are accessible or provide an
accessible alternative.
<Not needed>
Andi
andisnow@us.ibm.com
IBM Accessibility Center
(512) 838-9903, http://www.ibm.com/able
Internal Tie Line 678-9903, http://w3.austin.ibm.com/~snsinfo
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2003 11:28:23 UTC