- From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:13:04 -0500
- To: gv@trace.wisc.edu, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Here's a tangent...but please hear me out. There are likely holes in the proposal, but perhaps we can find a nugget of something useful. I've recently been working on the comments received about Checkpoint 1.3 (Make all content and structure available independently of presentation). This checkpoint combines a variety of WCAG 1.0 checkpoints that lean heavily towards HTML. e.g.: 3.1 When an appropriate markup language exists, use markup rather than images to convey information. [Priority 2] 3.3 Use style sheets to control layout and presentation. [Priority 2] 3.5 Use header elements to convey document structure and use them according to specification. [Priority 2] 3.6 Mark up lists and list items properly. [Priority 2] 3.7 Mark up quotations. Do not use quotation markup for formatting effects such as indentation. [Priority 2] 5.1 For data tables, identify row and column headers. [Priority 1] 5.2 For data tables that have two or more logical levels of row or column headers, use markup to associate data cells and header cells. [Priority 1] etc. etc. Thus, I'm wondering, "What if we moved the success criteria to the technology-specific documents?" Here's an idea of what it might look like at each of the layers: In the Guidelines/Checkpoints we might have: Checkpoint 1.3 Make all content and structure available independently of presentation [link to] technology-specific success criteria Benefits ... Examples ... Definitions ... === In a separate gateway document (that either exists statically or is generated based on user preference): Technology-specific success criteria Checkpoint 1.3 Make all content and structure available independently of presentation [link to] HTML success criteria [link to] SVG success criteria etc.etc. === In an HTML-specifics "checklist": HTML Techniques for WCAG 2.0 Checkpoint 1.3 Make all content and structure available independently of presentation Minimum level success criteria: HTML 1.3-1a For data tables, identify row and column headers. [link to] techniques for 1.3-1a HTML 1.3-1b For data tables that have two or more logical levels of row or column headers, use markup to associate data cells and header cells. [link to] techniques for 1.3-1b Level 2 success criteria: HTML 1.3-2a When an appropriate markup language exists, use markup rather than images to convey information. [link to] techniques for 1.3-2a Level 3 success criteria HTML 1.3-3a Provide summaries for tables. [link to] techniques for 1.3-3a Just a thought... --wendy At 03:21 PM 1/28/2003, Wendy A Chisholm wrote: >What I'm proposing is that a technique is a specific strategy (e.g., "Use >the title element to provide a unique title for a page") and that we >provide supplementary information for that technique (e.g., examples, >descriptions, etc.). > >Thus, a checklist is list of techniques. A checklist does not contain >the supplementary information for that technique. >--wendy > >At 02:53 PM 1/28/2003, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: >>That works ok for the techniques doc, but for the checklists we need >>checklist items. >> >>There may be 3 or 5 techniques for a success criteria. To meet the >>criteria you would not need to do all 5. but you may have to do one of >>them. Or two of them. Or some combination or another. >> >>In order for us to have a checklist, there will need to be very specific >>checklist items. And these would be different from techniques which is a >>much broader category of ideas, strategies, techniques, options etc. >> >>So I think we still need to find the word for those "things" >> >>Best I have heard so far is Technology Specific Checklist Items or TSC >>Items. >> >> >> >> >>Gregg >> >> -- ------------------------------ >>Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. >>Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr. >>Director - Trace R & D Center >>University of Wisconsin-Madison >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf >>Of Wendy A Chisholm >>Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 12:02 PM >>To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org >>Subject: [techs] proposal to replace use of "rules" >> >> >>Hello, >> >>A while ago (january 2002?), when we began making the techniques documents >>more testable we used the phrase "rules" for the testable statements. For >>a reminder of what this looks like, refer to the HTML Techniques [1]. We >>didn't want to use "checkpoint" or "criterion" since we wanted to >>distinguish the technology-specifics from the general guidelines and >>checkpoints. >> >>However, there are many acknowledged issues with the term "rule." e.g., it >>could be confused with the 508 rules, it may be interpreted as being too >>prescriptive. etc. Thus, to continue the discussion about what term to use >>instead, here is a proposal. First, at the top level we currently have: >>Guidelines which are made up of checkpoints >>Checkpoints which are made up of success criteria >>success criteria >> >>I propose that at the technology-specific level we have: >>(one or many) techniques that show how to meet a top-level success criterion >>a technique is a combination of: >>- the technique (e.g., "Use the meta element to...") >>- examples >>- descriptions >>- etc. (all the other stuff from the schema and techniques requirements) >> >>for those of you interested in the schema, i think we can continue to use >>the element "rule" but when we generate documents from the xml we do >>something along the following: >> >>==== >>TITLE: the document title >> >>Techniques: >>Use the TITLE element to describe the document. >>==== >> >>Basically, replace "Rules" with "Techniques." >> >>--wendy >> >>[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/wcagtech020320.html >> >>-- >>wendy a chisholm >>world wide web consortium >>web accessibility initiative >>http://www.w3.org/WAI/ >>/-- > >-- >wendy a chisholm >world wide web consortium >web accessibility initiative >http://www.w3.org/WAI/ >/-- -- wendy a chisholm world wide web consortium web accessibility initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI/ /--
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2003 16:13:12 UTC