Redraft of 5.3

Here is my redraft of checkpoint 5.3.  I've attempted to incorporate Lee's 
feedback (which included analysis of feedback from a bunch of other people 
including Ian).  This draft uses more complicated language than the last, 
but I think it makes the intentions more clear.  It's still a little rough, 
and I'd be happy to get feedback on both the substance and the language.

I've added a link to UAAG as a success criteria at every level.  These 
would be defined as UAAG profiles. We might not need to define a profile 
for every level, but I'd like to leave the option open.  I think this gets 
rid of the need for 5.4, as the UAAG link was the only piece of 5.4 that 
wasn't redundant to some other part of the guidelines.  I still have an 
action item to make sure that the guidelines cover interactive content 
properly, but assuming they do, 5.4 can go away.

1a may seem obvious, and is in fact self-referential.  I think that it adds 
a level of clarity for human readers.  Since this document is intended for 
human, not machine reading, I'm not bothered by the self-reference.  I'd 
like to hear what others think about this one in particular.

I added the level 2 requirement that the author be able to specify the data 
to pass through to access tools.  This would be things like specifying what 
letter to use for the shortcut, or which text to read out.  I'm not sure 
this is necessary, but it does make it easier for the author to design a 
usable alternative interface.

The text of the checkpoint itself and the informative benefits section are 
unchanged.

So, here it is...

Checkpoint 5.3 Choose technologies that are designed to support accessibility.

Success criteria
You will have successfully met Checkpoint 5.3 at the Minimum Level if:

1. the technology or combination of technologies chosen
         a). allows the author/programmer to meet the other requirements of 
these guidelines.  For example, the technology supports device independent 
event handling and has a mechanism for specifying text equivalents.

         b) provides a mechanism for the author/programmer to make use of 
the accessibility interfaces of the host operating system.  This may be 
done via a user agent.

         c) has publicly documented interfaces for interoperability
         d) is implemented in user agents and/or proxies in the natural 
language of the content
         e) interoperates with assistive technologies in the natural 
language(s) of the content.  This may be achieved by use of accessibility 
interfaces in the host operating system.

2) If the technology makes use of a user agent, the user agent [link to 
definition] meets UAAG at (insert level)

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 5.3 at Level 2 if:

1) the technology or combination of technologies chosen allows the 
author/programmer to specify what data is to be passed through to the 
operating system accessibility interfaces

2) If the technology makes use of a user agent, the user agent [link to 
definition] meets UAAG at (insert level)

You will have successfully met Checkpoint 5.3 at Level 3 if:

1) If the technology makes use of a user agent, the user agent [link to 
definition] meets UAAG at (insert level)

The following are additional ideas for enhancing a site along this 
particular dimension:
(presently no additional criteria for this level.)

Benefits (informative)
Authors who utilize technologies designed to support accessibility will:
encounter fewer challenges when implementing these guidelines
avoid the need to create custom solutions and workarounds to address 
accessibility concerns
avoid the need to provide accessible alternate versions for content 
rendered in a technology that does not fully address these guidelines

Received on Friday, 7 March 2003 10:40:22 UTC