- From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
- Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 10:35:39 -0600
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <C46A1118E0262B47BD5C202DA2490D1A1DFBEF@MAIL02.austin.utexas.edu>
Plain language version of Guideline 2.5 with success criteria, benefits, and examples This document contains a series of proposals for a "plain language_ rewording of WCAG 2.0 Guideline 2.5 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) 2, Checkpoint (now Guideline) 2.5, 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 2.5 2.5 [E6] Methods are provided to minimize error and provide graceful recovery. Proposed wording for Guideline 2.5 2.5 [E6] Help users avoid mistakes and make it easy to correct them. Current wording for Checkpoint 2.5, SC 1 Editorial Note: The CKW proposal suggested that this required success criterion be combined with one of the best practice items and that another best practice item be moved up. [ I#440] 1. if an error is detected, feedback is provided to the user identifying the error (in an accessible form that meets core checkpoints). Proposed wording for Guideline 2.5, SC 1 Editorial Note: The CKW proposal suggested that this required success criterion be combined with one of the best practice items and that another best practice item be moved up. [I#440] 1. Information that is given to users about mistakes or problems conforms to these guidelines. Current wording for Best Practice Measures for Checkpoint 2.5 1. where possible, the user is allowed to select from a list of options as well as to generate input text directly 2. errors are identified specifically and suggestions for correction are provided where possible 3. checks for misspelled words are applied and correct spellings are suggested when text entry is required. 4. where consequences are significant and time-response is not important, one of the following is true A. actions are reversible B. where not reversible, actions are checked for errors in advance C. where not reversible, and not checkable, a confirmation is asked before acceptance Proposed wording for Best Practice Measures for Guideline 2.5 1. Users are allowed to select from a list of options as well as to enter text directly 2. errors are described and instructions or suggestions for correction are provided 3. checks for misspelled words are applied and correct spellings are suggested when text entry is required. 4. where consequences are significant and time-response is not important, one of the following is true List of 3 items nesting level 1 A. actions are reversible B. where actions are not reversible, they are checked for errors before going on to the next step in a process C. where actions are not reversible, and cannot be checked in advance, the user is able to review and confirm or correct information before submitting it. Current wording for Benefits of Checkpoint 2.5 * Individuals with writing disabilities and people with dyslexia often have difficulty writing text in forms or other places that need text input. * Individuals with speech disabilities might not be recognized properly in voice input applications. Proposed wording for Who benefits from Checkpoint 2.5 (Informative) * Individuals with writing disabilities and people with dyslexia often benefit when spelling is checked in situations that require users to enter text * People with trembling hands or other conditions that make it difficult to type accurately benefit when spelling is checked before submitting text * People with speech disabilities can benefit from the opportunity to correct information they have entered by speaking. Current wording for Examples of Checkpoint 2.5 * Example 1: a search engine. A search engine is provided with a variety of search options for different skill levels and preferences. It includes a spell checker and offers "best guess" alternatives, query-by-example searches, and similarity searches. Proposed wording for Examples of Guideline 2.5 (Informative) * Example 1: A search engine A search engine has options for different skill levels and preferences. It includes a spell checker and offers "best guess" alternatives, query-by-example searches, and similarity searches.
Received on Thursday, 6 November 2003 11:37:07 UTC