Re: [techs] Re: Techniques For HTML Rough Draft

Wendy,

> 1. We need to figure out how to combine AERT with the current HTML
> Techniques draft [1].  Or will we have two documents?  Also, keep in mind
> the relation to ATAG and ATAG Techniques [2].
>
<wondering aloud>
Are our accessibility techniques based upon the WCAG2 document or its
techniques document?
</wondering aloud>

The techniques document seems more precise than the WCAG2 so it would be
easier to base our accessibility checking on it. But does the techniques
document cover everything that could be related to accessibility? A quick
look over shows that it covers accessibility issues quite well.

> 2. How will we handle overlap of techniques?  For example, you have
> technique 3.5.1 "Check document for header nesting" associated with
> checkpoint 3.1, but these might also be relevant to checkpoint 1.3 "Make
> all content and structure available independently of presentation."
>
Yes, there will definitely be overlap. If, however, we base our
accessibility techniques on the WCAG techniques then we won't have to worry
about overlap. It seems to me that the WCAG techniques are HTML element
oriented like the AERT.

> 3. I'm curious how you sorted the techniques into Levels.  There are some
> WCAG 1.0 priority 1 techniques in Level 2, Minimum Level are primarily
WCAG
> 1.0 priority 2.  If this sorting is correct, then people who conform to
> WCAG 1.0 will be a bit confused when they move to WCAG 2.0.
>
The guideline for minimum level deals with titles and paragraphs so I placed
all the techniques dealing with titles and paragraphs under it. Reviewing my
initial sorting has shown up some errors.

Yes, it could be confusing to people migrating from 1.0 to 2.0 if we're not
consistent. Perhaps that should be a contributing factor to where we place
the techniques.

> 4. What is a major section and what is a long document?
> 5. Can valid long documents be devoid of paragraphs?
>
The WCAG2 Techniques document talks about "long documents" and "sections"
without defining them. Hmmm, how precise do we need to be?


Chris


----- Original Message -----
From: "Wendy A Chisholm" <wendy@w3.org>
To: "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>; "WAI GL (E-mail)"
<w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 2:11 AM
Subject: [techs] Re: Techniques For HTML Rough Draft


> Chris,
>
> Thanks.  This raises some good questions and issues.
>
> 1. We need to figure out how to combine AERT with the current HTML
> Techniques draft [1].  Or will we have two documents?  Also, keep in mind
> the relation to ATAG and ATAG Techniques [2].
> 2. How will we handle overlap of techniques?  For example, you have
> technique 3.5.1 "Check document for header nesting" associated with
> checkpoint 3.1, but these might also be relevant to checkpoint 1.3 "Make
> all content and structure available independently of presentation."
> 3. I'm curious how you sorted the techniques into Levels.  There are some
> WCAG 1.0 priority 1 techniques in Level 2, Minimum Level are primarily
WCAG
> 1.0 priority 2.  If this sorting is correct, then people who conform to
> WCAG 1.0 will be a bit confused when they move to WCAG 2.0.
> (the next two questions are from your document)
> 4. What is a major section and what is a long document?
> 5. Can valid long documents be devoid of paragraphs?
> This might relate to the applicability axis we talked about at last
> Thursday's telecon.
>
> --w
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/wcagtech020320.html#text
> [2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/#Deliverables
>
> At 02:00 PM 2/25/2003, Chris Ridpath wrote:
>
> >I've created a (very) rough draft of the techniques for guideline 3.1
> >(navigable) and posted it at:
> >http://www.aprompt.ca/TechniquesDraft1.html
> >
> >This is really just the techniques from the AERT that seem to fit the new
> >3.1 guideline. These techniques are referenced by title but in the final
> >document they would be filled out as in the AERT.
> >
> >I've placed the techniques under the 3 categories of minimum, level 2 and
> >level 3 as I thought they fit.
> >
> >Before going any further I thought I should see if I'm on the right
track.
> >What's right or wrong with this document?
> >
> >Chris
>
> --
> wendy a chisholm
> world wide web consortium
> web accessibility initiative
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/
> /--
>

Received on Thursday, 27 February 2003 10:10:28 UTC