PLAIN: Rewording for guideline 1.8

Plain language version of Guideline 1.8 plus success criteria, benefits,
and examples

 

This document contains a series of proposals for a "plain language_
rewording of WCAG 2.0 Checkpoint 1.8 with Success Criteria, Examples,
and Benefits

 

This is submitted in partial fulfillment of an action item taken by John
Slatin, Katie Haritos-Shay, and Doyle Burnett during a call in late
September or early October, to generate a plain-language version of WCAG
2.  

 

This message is partial in two ways: (1) It addresses only Guideline
(now Principle) 1, Checkpoint (now Guideline) 1.8, and the relevant
success criteria, examples, and benefits.  Other guidelines, etc., will
follow.  (2) It is not really "plain language," in the sense that this
text has not yet been compared to the 1500-word "special lexicon" used
by Voice of America (or other similar lexicons).  Thus it's actually
best understood as an attempt to simplify and clarify.  We're still
working on the formal plain language issues, but wanted to put this out
to start generating discussion.

 

Items labeled "Current wording" are taken from the September document
Reorg 4, available at http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2003/09/reorg4.html
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2003/09/reorg4.html> .  This document was
current at the time Katie and Doyle and I took on the action item to
attempt a plain language version.  Of course the proposed rewordings
will need to be correlated with later updates.


Current wording for Checkpoint 1.8


1.8 [E4] [color vision is not required to perceive content (or something
like this to allow color-coding issues to exist at extended checkpoint
level)]


Proposed wording for Guideline 1.8


1.8  [E4] Make sure that people who do not have access to color displays
will be able to perceive all content.


Current wording for Checkpoint 1.8, SC 1


1. (something to achieve an effect where information can be perceived
with common color deficiencies)


Proposed wording for Guideline 1.8, SC 1


Information conveyed through color is also recognizable in the absence
of color. list end


Current wording for Best Practice Measures for Checkpoint 1.8


1. content can be perceived with no color vision


Proposed wording for Best Practice Measures for Guideline 1.8


1. Important information is provided in content or through markup as
well as color.


Current wording for Benefits of Checkpoint 1.8


[None listed]


Proposed wording for Who benefits from Checkpoint 1.8 (Informative)


*        People who do not perceive some colors can use other cues to
recognize content.

*        People for whom certain colors have specific cultural meaning
will be able to recognize different types of content based on other
cues.

 


Current wording for Examples of Checkpoint 1.8


[None listed]


Proposed wording for Examples of Guideline 1.8 


(Informative)


Example 1. A form that includes both required and optional fields.

 

Labels for required fields are shown in red and include an asterisk.

 

Example 2. Results of an online examination.

Incorrect responses are preceded by a blue, bell-shaped icon and grouped
under a heading that reads, "Incorrect responses."  Correct answers are
grouped under a heading that reads, "Correct responses" and each
response is preceded by a gold icon in the shape of a star.

 

Example 3. A bus schedule.

 

A bus schedule is presented as a table. Columns that list morning and
afternoon times use different background colors. In addition to the
background colors, , standard abbreviations are used to indicate morning
and afternoon or times are shown in 24-hour format (for example, 2:34pm
or 14:24). 

 

 

 

 


"Good design is accessible design." 
Please note our new name and URL!
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/
<http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/>