- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 06 May 2003 00:18:31 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
- Message-id: <004c01c3138e$efd23380$026fa8c0@TOSHIBATABLET>
Hi all,
In an attempt to see how the guidelines might look with the new approach we
have been talking about, I took all the guidelines and reorganized them to
see if it held together or all fell apart. Some notes on what I did.
1) I redistributed the "NAVIGATION" items into either "OPERATE" or
"UNDERSTAND"
- I did this because there were multiple points of overlap of
techniques between these categories.
2) The checkpoints seemed to themselves fall into the Group 1 or Group 2
category (rather than the success criteria). So I moved the GROUPing up
to just under the GUIDELINES (and above the checkpoints)
3) I only have two levels at present. The GROUP 1 (which are the minimum)
and the rest which are GROUP 2. We can divide further later -this is just
a first pass.
4) There still were greater and lesser success criteria, so I tried making
"required" and "recommended" under the Group 1 category. They are slightly
different under the GROUP 2 and this is something we need to look at and
work on.
5) I combined a couple checkpoints where the strategies (or success
criteria) were the same or almost the same. I also combined the two that
were identical except that one pertained to CONTENT and one to WEB SITES.
Today, I don't think we can always make a clear differentiation between
these concepts. And I think it will be harder tomorrow.
THIS IS JUST A FIRST PASS. So we can work on it. There is more to be
done but I burned out my head getting this far. Thanks much to Ben for
helping me on this. (credit to him for what looks good - but not what looks
bad).
Looking forward to your thoughts. For efficiency you might list the things
you like and the things that concern you both. That way we can figure out
if we want to go this way - and what areas to work on even if they don't
work yet. (e.g. "I like xxxxx but I worry that it yyyy or it doesn't work
for zzzz."
I will be in all day meetings on Wed and Thurs but I think I might be out by
4 eastern time on Thurs. if so I will join you.
For my own convenience I created 3 forms
- a one pager that helps to get an overview. I emphasized phrases
from each to make it easier to see what they are about.
- A version with just the Guidelines, checkpoints and descriptions
of where the old success criteria went in this re-org
- A version that included the success criteria. Thank Ben for
making it pretty - and easier to read and navigate.
I have attached all three to this message for your convenience.
Since some have trouble with attachments, I have pasted the full form below
as well.
In all three documents, the numbers in [SQUARE BRACKETS] are the old
checkpoint numbers.
I have not tried to clean up the success criteria much yet. Want to see
what you all think first.
Have fun. And if you can't figure out what I did or why, just ask. I may
even remember.
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
NOTE: TRACE HAS MOVED TO A NEW ADDRESS
(Same Email and Phone)
Trace R & D Center
2107 Engineering Centers Bldg.
1550 Engineering Drive
MADISON, WI 53706
------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Human Factors
Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Gv@trace.wisc.edu < <mailto:Gv@trace.wisc.edu> mailto:Gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <
<http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/>
FAX 608/262-8848
For a list of our listserves http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/
Attached and pasted below is a quick Reorg of the Guidelines along the lines
of what we have been talking about.
The Square brackets show what the checkpoints
May 1, 2003 Proposed Reorganization
Note: Items in square brackets indicate Checkpoint numbering in the April 29
Draft <http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-WCAG20-20030429/> .
Guideline 1 PERCEIVABLE.
Make Content Perceivable
Group One Checkpoints - Minimum - Required
1-M1 [1.1] All non-text content that can be expressed in words has a text
equivalent of the function or information that the non-text content was
intended to convey.
Success Criteria - Required
1. non-text content that can be expressed in words has a
text-equivalent explicitly associated with it.
2. non-text content that can not be expressed in words has a
descriptive label provided as its text-equivalent.
* The text equivalent should fulfill the same function as the author
intended for the non-text content (i.e. it presents all of the intended
information and/or achieves the same function of the non-text content).
Recommended
1. the text-equivalent has been reviewed and is believed to fulfill the
same function as the author intended for the non-text content (i.e. it
presents all of the intended information and/or achieves the same function
of the non-text content)
1-M2 [1.2] Synchronized media equivalents are provided for time-dependent
presentations.
Success Criteria - Required
1. an audio description is provided of all significant visual
information in scenes, actions and events that cannot be perceived from the
sound track alone.
* Note: When adding audio description to existing materials, the
amount of information conveyed through audio description is constrained by
the amount of space available in the existing audio track. It may also be
impossible or inappropriate to freeze the audio/visual program to insert
additional audio description.
2. all significant dialogue and sounds are captioned
exception: if the Web content is real-time and audio-only and not
time-sensitive and not interactive a transcript or other non-audio
equivalent is sufficient.
3. descriptions and captions are synchronized with the events they
represent.
4. if the Web content is real-time video with audio, real-time captions
are provided unless the content:
* is a music program that is primarily non-vocal
5. If the Web content is real-time non-interactive video (e.g., a
Webcam of ambient conditions), either provide an equivalent that conforms to
checkpoint 1.1 (e.g., an ongoing update of weather conditions) or link to an
equivalent that conforms to checkpoint 1.1 (e.g., a link to a weather Web
site).
6. if a pure audio or pure video presentation requires a user to
respond interactively at specific times in the presentation, then a
time-synchronized equivalent (audio, visual or text) presentation is
provided.
exception: if content is rebroadcast from another medium or resource that
complies to broadcast requirements for accessibility (independent of these
guidelines), the rebroadcast satisfies the checkpoint if it complies with
the other guidelines.
Recommended
1. the audio description has been reviewed and is believed to include
all significant visual information in scenes, actions and events (that can't
be perceived from the sound track) to the extent possible given the
constraints posed by the existing audio track (and constraints on freezing
the audio/visual program to insert additional auditory description).
Listed below are items from group two which relate to this checkpoint:
1. a text document that merges all audio descriptions and captions into
a collated script (that provides dialog, important sounds and important
visual information in a single text document) is provided.
2. captions and audio descriptions are provided for all live broadcasts
which provide the same information.
3. The presentation does not require the user to read captions and the
visual presentation simultaneously in order to understand the content.
1-M3 [1.3] All content and structure are [separate or separable from]
available independently of presentation.
Success Criteria - Required
1. the following can be derived programmatically (i.e. through
assistive technology compatible markup or data model) from the content
without interpreting presentation.
a. any hierarchical elements and relationships, such as headings,
paragraphs and lists
b. any non-hierarchical relationships between elements such as
cross-references and linkages, associations between labels and controls,
associations between cells and their headers, etc.
c. any emphasis
[An example for color coding and an example of forms and labels should be
added to the informative information here.]
1-M4 [1.6] All characters and words in the content can be unambiguously
decoded.
Success Criteria - Required
1. text in the content is provided in Unicode or sufficient information
is provided so that it will be automatically mapped back to Unicode.
Note: If a standard format for doing it can be achieved, we might require
that linkages to glossaries for all abbreviations and acronyms that are
created by the author or site be provided. We could also recommend that
linkages to any abbreviations, acronyms, etc. used by the authors also be
provided. We could also have a weaker recommendation for acronyms and
abbreviations appearing on the site that linkages to glossaries explaining
all abbreviations acronyms, etc. that appear in any documents on the site be
provided.
Recommended
1. abbreviations and acronyms are clearly identified where they occur.
(See also checkpoint 4.3.)
2. symbols such as diacritic marks that are found in standard usage of
the natural language of the content, and necessary for unambiguous
interpretation of words, are present or another standard mechanism for
disambiguation is provided.
Group Two Checkpoints
1-E1 [1.4] Structure has been made perceivable to more people through
presentation(s), positioning, and labels.
Success Criteria - Required
1. the structural elements present have a different visual appearance
or auditory characteristic than the other structural elements.
Recommended
1. the structural emphases are chosen to be distinct for different
major display types (e.g. black and white, small display, mono audio
playback).
2. content is constructed such that users can control the presentation
of the structural elements.
3. alternate presentation formats are available to vary the emphasis of
the structure.
1-E2 [1.5] Foreground content is easily differentiable from background
for both auditory and visual presentations [required].
Success Criteria - Required
1. text content that is presented over a background image or pattern is
implemented using mechanisms that allow the user to display the text without
the background image or pattern.
Recommended [All level 2 and 3 items from checkpoint 1.5.]
1. when text content is presented over a background image or pattern,
the text is easily readable when the page is viewed in 256 grayscale.
2. text content is not presented over a background image or pattern OR
the text is easily readable when the page is viewed in black and white (no
grayscale).
3. audio content does not contain background sounds OR the background
sounds are at least 20 db lower than the foreground audio content.
4. text content is not presented over a background image or color OR
the colors used for the text and background or background image pass the
following test:
* no tests/algorithms are available at this time
Reviewer's Note: The working group is seeking an algorithm that measures
contrast in a way that is accurate and testable enough that we could include
it in the guidelines. One algorithm, which comes from the Techniques For
Accessibility Evaluation And <http://www.w3.org/TR/AERT> Repair Tools
document, is currently under consideration for inclusion in the techniques,
but the group has not yet found something that is specific enough to be
included at the guidelines level.
Guideline 2 OPERABLE.
Ensure that Interface Elements in the Content are Operable by Any User
Group One Checkpoints - Minimum
2-M1 [2.1] Ensure that all of the functionality is operable at a minimum
through a keyboard or a keyboard interface.
Success Criteria - Required
1. all of the functionality of the content where the functionality or
its outcome can be expressed concisely in words is operable at a minimum
through a keyboard or keyboard interface.
* Note: refer to checkpoint 5.3 for information regarding user agent
support.
Recommended
1. wherever a choice between event handlers is available and supported,
the more abstract event is used.
[Informative information. Add a definition of operable as meaning not using
mouse keys or an infinite tabbing on a long doc or other unreasonably
inefficient keyboard access. Add another definition that says something to
the effect that access is efficient. That is, mouse keys can't be used as a
way to provide access via keyboard and if a document has a very large number
of links, some mechanism other than tabbing through them one at a time needs
to be provided]
2-M2 [2.2] Allow users to control any time limits on their reading,
interaction, or responses unless control is not possible due to nature of
real time events or competition.
Success Criteria - Required
1. at least one of the following is true for each time limit:
a. the user is allowed to deactivate the time limits,
b. or the user is allowed to adjust the time limit over a wide range
which is at least 10 times the average user's preference,
c. or the user is warned before time expires and given at least 10
seconds to extend the time limit,
d. or the time limit is due to a real-time event (e.g. auction) and no
alternative to the time limit is possible,
e. or the time limit is part of a competitive activity where timing is
an essential part of the activity (e.g. competitive gaming or time based
testing).
Related group two items -- It is recommended , but not required that,
wherever possible, activities be designed so that time limits are not an
essential part of the activity. (e.g. alternate forms of competition,
testing, etc. that are not time based.)
Group Two Checkpoints
2-E1 [2.3] User can prevent screen flicker.
Success Criteria - Required
1. At least one of the following is true:
a. content was not designed to flicker (or flash) in the range of 3 to
49 Hz.
b. Reviewer's Note: We would like to include a criteria here which
would state that a test that was conducted and the pages passed. No test or
tool exists yet though. We're looking into how such a test and/or tool might
be designed.
c. if flicker is unavoidable, the user is warned of the flicker before
they go to the page, and as close a version of the content as is possible
without flicker is provided.
Recommended
1. animation or other content does not visibly or purposely flicker
between 3 and 49 Hz.
2. content that might create a problem has been tested [using XYZ
tool]; only pages with unavoidable flicker remain and appropriate warnings
along with a close alternative presentation have been provided for these
pages.
3. (tougher test - that would make pages pass with even slower equip.
Equip might be old or just slow for other reasons)
Note: Because this checkpoint impacts on and limits types of presentation,
it is not included in group one. However, it is very strongly recommended
that anyone creating accessibility guidelines or regulations consider this
checkpoint for their required set.
2-E2 [3.1 and 3.2] Structure and/or alternate navigation mechanisms have
been added to facilitate orientation and movement in content.
Success Criteria - Required In documents greater than 50,000 words or
sites larger than 50 perceived pages, the following are provided.
a. Additional hierarchical structure mark up
b. Table of contents (or site map)
c. Alternate display orders (or alternate site navigation
mechanisms)
d. (Items currently listed under Success Criteria for 3.1 and
3.2 should be considered for here, but many/most of them should actually be
moved to the techniques document???)
Note: One of the reasons for combining these two is that they both get at
the same issue. Also, on many sites, it is becoming increasingly difficult
to tell when you are navigating within a site and when you are navigating
within a document. This will only increase over time. Since the title of
this thing is web content, it is recommended that these two items be
combined so that we are talking about web content versus separating content
from sites.
2-E3 [3.5] Methods are provided to minimize error and provide graceful
recovery.
Success Criteria - Required
1. if an error is detected, feedback is provided to the user
identifying the error.
Recommended
1. the content has been reviewed and is believed to have incorporated
error prevention and recovery methods that are considered to be effective
and appropriate
2. where possible, the user is allowed to select from a list of options
as well as to generate input text directly
3. errors are identified specifically and suggestions for correction
are provided where possible
4. checks for misspelled words are applied and correct spellings are
suggested when text entry is required.
5. where consequences are significant and time-response is not
important, one of the following is true
a. actions are reversible where possible
b. where not reversible, actions are checked for errors in advance.
c. where not reversible, and not checkable, a confirmation is asked
before acceptance
Guideline 3 UNDERSTANDABLE.
Make it as easy as possible to understand the content and controls
Group One Checkpoints
3-M1 [1.6 partial] Language of content can be unambiguously determined.
Success Criteria - Required
1. passages or fragments of text occurring within the content that are
written in a language other than the primary natural language of the content
as a whole, are identified, including specification of the language of the
passage or fragment.
2. the primary natural language of the content is identified at the
page level.
Changes in the language within a document are marked.
Recommended If the document as a whole is written in one language, a tool
can generally determine the language. If there is a document on a site
which is mostly all in one language, then the single document in one
language could be indicated.
3-M2 [4.3] The meaning of words, abbreviations, and acronyms can be
unambiguously determined.
Success Criteria - Required
1. acronyms and abbreviations are defined the first time they appear.
Recommended [All items from level 2 of 4.3 plus "cascading dictionaries"]
1. @@ "cascading dictionaries"
2. the content has been reviewed, taking into account the additional
ideas listed below, and it is believed that complex, abbreviated or
unfamiliar information has been annotated appropriately
a. provide a definition or link (with the first occurrence) of phrases,
words, acronyms, and abbreviations specific to a particular community.
b. provide a summary for relationships that may not be obvious from
analyzing the structure of a table but that may be apparent in a visual
rendering of the table.
c. if contracted forms of words are used such that they are ambiguous,
provide semantic markup to make words unique and interpretable.
Group Two Checkpoints
3-E1 [4.1 and 4.2] Content is written to be no more complex than is
necessary and/or supplement with simpler forms of the content.
Success Criteria - Required
1. familiarity of terms and language structure
2. reasonableness of length and complexity of sentences
3. coherence of paragraphs (and sensibility in length)
4. clarity of headings and linked text when read out of context
5. accuracy and uniqueness of page titles
6. care in the use of all-capital letters where normal sentence case
might increase comprehension
7. authors have included non-text content to supplement text for key
pages or sections of the site where they felt it was appropriate.
Recommended
1. use of sentence structures that increase understanding
* such as active voice in languages where this form helps convey
information
2. length of noun phrases
* strings of no more than three or four nouns are easiest to
understand
3. clarity of reference with pronouns and anaphoric expressions (these
refer back to something already said in the text)
* example of potential ambiguity: "Scientists study monkeys. They eat
bananas."
4. correct use of conjunction forms and adverbs to make explicit the
relationship between phrases or parts of the text
* such as "and," "but," "furthermore," "not only"
5. complexity of verb tenses
* do the tenses used in a document seem overly complicated?
6. intelligibility of verb phrases
7. familiarity of idioms or slang
8. logic in the order and flow of information
9. consequences of ambiguity or abstraction
10. improved readability of vertical lists might offer in place of long
paragraphs of information
11. use of summaries to aid understanding
12. thoroughness in the explanation of instructions or required actions
13. consistency in the use of names and labels
14. clarity where the document:
* addresses users
* explains choices and options
* labels options to get more information
* instructs users how to modify selections in critical functions (such
as how to delete an item from a shopping cart)
15. application of:
* proper markup to highlight key information
* goal-action structure for menu prompts
* default settings (and the ease in re-establishing them)
* two-step "select and confirm" processes to reduce accidental
selections for critical functions
* calculation assistance to reduce the need to calculate
16. at least one of the following is true:
* new material is tested with potential users for ease of
accessibility
* a controlled language is used
* support is given for conversion into symbolic languages
17. the content has been reviewed and it is believed that text has been
supplemented with non-text content to the extent deemed appropriate by the
author
18. non-text content has been added to the site for key pages or
sections specifically to make the site more understandable by users who
cannot understand the text only version of the site.
3-E2 [3.3 and 3.4] Layout and behavior of content is consistent but not
identical.
Success Criteria - Required
1. key orientation and navigational elements are generally found in one
or two locations or their locations are otherwise predictable.
2. where inconsistent or unpredictable responses are essential to the
function of the content (e.g. mystery games, adventure games, tests, etc.)
the user is warned in advance of encountering them.
3. wherever there are extreme changes in context, one of the following
is true:
a. an easy to find setting, that persists for the site visit, is
provided for the user to deactivate processes or features that cause extreme
changes in context or
b. extreme changes in context are identified before they occur so the
user can determine if they wish to proceed or so they can be prepared for
the change
Recommended
1. the content has been reviewed, taking into account the additional
ideas listed below, and it has been concluded that key orientation and
navigational elements are generally found in one or two locations, or their
locations are otherwise predictable
2. the content has been reviewed, and it has been found that where
inconsistent or unpredictable responses are essential to its function (e.g.
mystery games, adventure games, tests, etc.), the user is warned in advance
of encountering them
Guideline 4 - ROBUST.
Use web technologies that maximize the ability of the content to work with
current and future accessibility technologies and user agents.
Group One Checkpoints
4-M1 [5.1] Technologies are used according to specification
Success Criteria - Required
1. for markup, except where the site has documented that a
specification was violated for backward compatibility, the markup has passed
validity tests of the language (whether it be conforming to a schema,
Document Type Definition (DTD), or other tests described in the
specification), structural elements and attributes are used as defined in
the specification, accessibility features are used, and deprecated features
are avoided.
Reviewer's Note:The following two success criteria seem to overlap with
checkpoint 5.4. There is an open question about whether they should be
deleted since Checkpoint 5.4 covers programmatic interfaces.
2. for Application Programming Interfaces (API's), programming
standards for the language are followed.
3. accessibility features and API's are used when available.
Recommended
1. for markup, the markup has passed validity tests of the language
(whether it be conforming to a schema, Document Type Definition (DTD), or
other tests described in the specification), structural elements and
attributes are used as defined in the specification, accessibility features
are used, and deprecated features are avoided.
4-M2 [5.2] Ensure that technologies relied upon by the content are
declared and widely available.
Success Criteria - Required
1. a list of technologies and features, support for which is required
in order for the content to be operable, has been determined and is
documented in metadata and / or a policy statement associated with the
content.
* Note: When determining your list of technological requirements,
consider that assistive hardware and software is often slow to adapt to
technological advances, and the availability of assistive technology varies
across natural languages. Verify that assistive technology compatible with
the technologies you choose is available in the natural language(s) of your
content.
2. the content is still usable when features not on the required list
(for example, scripting and stylesheets) are turned off or not supported.
Recommendation
1. Technologies and features on the required list are available in at
least two independently-developed implementations.
2. of at least two such implementations, it is true that the
technologies and features on the required list have been supported by at
least one prior version of the software.
[In the definitions add a definition of "widely available" to include
something which is low cost and available in many?/most?
countries/languages.]
4-M3 [5.3 and 5.4] Technologies used for presentation and user interface
support accessibility or alternate versions of the content are provided
which do support accessibility.
Success Criteria - Required
1. the technology or combination of technologies chosen:
a. support device independence
b. include accessibility features
c. have publicly documented interfaces for interoperability
d. make use of operating system accessibility features (either directly
or via the user agent) supported by assistive technologies in the natural
language(s) of the content
e. are implemented in user agents and/or proxies in the natural
language(s) of the content
2. any applications with custom user interfaces conform to at least
Level A of the User Agent <http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/> Accessibility
Guidelines 1.0. If the application cannot be made accessible, an
alternative, accessible solution is provided.
[Note: Many of the items listed in 5.3 are ambiguous and/or not actually
required for accessibility. We should carefully examine this one. For
example:
* What does device independence mean besides the items that
are already required in these guidelines?
* What does "include accessibility features" mean besides
what is included in this set of guidelines?
* Having interfaces for interoperability publicly documented
simply means that they have been posted on a website, it doesn't necessarily
mean that it follows any standards or that anybody supports it and it
doesn't necessarily make something accessible to anyone.
* Unless these operating system features are all listed
specifically in this standard, they should not be at a "required" level in
the standard.
Cynthia
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2003JanMar/0309.html> has
re-written this section and we should look at her recommendations carefully.
These notes are based off our current post it draft.
Recommended
1. the interface has been tested using a variety of assistive
technologies and preferably real people with disabilities who use assistive
technologies to determine that assistive technologies can access all
information on the page or hidden within the page.
Reviewer's Note: It would be possible to comply with the checkpoint without
carrying out tests (either with users or with assistive technologies).
Conversely, it is possible to conduct tests, but still fail to meet the
checkpoint (with respect to assistive technologies that were not tested, for
example). Should this success criterion be deleted?
2. device-independent access to functionality is provided
3. accessibility conventions of the markup or programming language
(API's or specific markup) are used
Group Two Checkpoints
[NONE]
Attachments
- text/html attachment: REORG_on_1_page.htm
- text/html attachment: ReOrg_Proposal_5-1-03.html
- text/html attachment: ReOrg_Proposal_5-1-03_with_sc.htm
Received on Tuesday, 6 May 2003 01:18:48 UTC