W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2004

2.4 CLEANUP - Does NOT resolve all open issues

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 00:10:46 -0600
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <0HTM00DS3MHVFZ@smtp5.doit.wisc.edu>
Cleanup of 2.4


This email proposes a cleanup of 2.4 to prepare for a TR draft.  This does
not resolve all of the open issues but is a proposal for cleaning up most of
the wording and as many of the other issues as we could. 


As before, the changes that are made are stated here at the front of this
email with a copy of the guideline as it would look at the end.



1.)            Recommend a shorter cleaner version of the guideline itself
that would read as follows.

     2.4  Facilitate the ability of users to orient themselves and move
about in content.

2.)            There was an editorial note suggesting that nothing be
required for this guideline (Issue 441) 

This is an old note that should be closed, since there are no Level One
success criteria anymore. (Haven't been for awhile). 


3.)            The Plain language version for SC 1A is not used because it
changed the meaning from "adding structure" to "adding markup for structure"
(adding markup is already covered under a previous guideline).  


SC 1A now reads just "hierarchal structure".


4.)            On a number of the guidelines, there was confusion as to
whether the recommendation applied to pages or to sites.  For each of the
items, the word (for pages) or (for sites) was added to make this clear.
Also, the original language was used because it was shorter and kept the
parallel items (for pages and sites) together.  The items therefore read:


                B.            Table of contents (for pages) or Site maps
(for a site)


                C.            Alternative display order (for pages) or
Alternative site navigation mechanisms (for a site)


5.)            Success criteria number two (Level 2) talked about providing
a way to skip over blocks of more than seven links.  The number seven seemed
to evoke a lot of people who believed it was either biblical (seven days) or
psychological (the magic number seven plus or minus two).  This has been
changed, therefore, to read eight or more since the number has nothing to do
with either of these.  It had to do with the point at which it is more work
to deal with a skip link than it was to tab through a whole bunch of links.
We still need to discuss this one someday and decide to keep or change the
number or drop the whole success criteria.  However it is one that many
people put high on their priority list.


6.)            The phrase "site banners" was also removed since it was not
clear exactly what a "site banner" was, and it seemed redundant with the
phrase "large blocks of material repeated on multiple pages".


Otherwise, the plain-language text was adopted for these success criteria. 


The editorial note was removed regarding the words "skip", "large" and
"repetitive" as being ambiguous.  Skip and repetitive seemed to be fairly
clear.    Large was quantified by the number eight so as to give it some
testability.  This issue, however, should not be completely closed since we
should do some testing to see if it is fairly clear or if we can make it
clearer as to exactly what a "large block text" would be.  Else this one has
to be deleted. 


7.)            Level 3 , SC #1asks that material be reviewed and applied as
appropriate.  We have had already previously determined that "as
appropriate" is untestable.  Also that any review by itself is untestable.
This has therefore been reworded to state that "there is a statement
associated with the content asserting that the list of items were
considered".     The list of items to be considered were then placed in an
appendix as was done for 3.1.


At some time in the future, we need to determine whether or not such a list
needs to be the body of the document rather than an appendix.


Notes regarding the list of items (now in the appendix)


In general, we used the plain-language version with the following edits.


*	Item E "dividing very large works into sections or chapters with
optical labels" was deleted since it was redundant with B which read
"dividing documents, especially very long ones, into hierarchical sections
and subsections with clear and informative titles".
*	In D, the phrase "correspondence between headers and data cells and
data tables" was removed from the category of non-hierarchical relationships
since data tables are hierarchical.


8.)     Level 3  SC 2, 3 and 4 are the plain language versions except that
the phrase "on assistive technology" was removed from No. 2 and the phrase
"where possible" was removed from No. 4 because they would not be testable.
Otherwise the last 3 SC of level 3 and the informative sections were left as
they were even though they have open issues.   Have to clean those up in
discussion after TR unless someone has a great idea now to propose.  





Guideline 2.4 Facilitate the ability of users to orient themselves and move
about in content. [level 2 guideline] 

Level 1 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.4

1.	No level 1 success criteria for this guideline 

Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.4

1.	In documents greater than 50,000 words or sites larger than 50
perceived pages, at least one of the following is provided. [V] 

Editorial Note: NRT (5 Nov 2003): What's a perceived page? What if it's a
voice XML application. How does it apply to web applications? (Untestable
Success Criteria) 

a.	hierarchical
4.html#structuredef#structuredef> structure 
b.	table of contents (for pages) or site map (for sites) 
c.	alternate display order (for pages) or alternate
4.html#site-nav-mechdef#site-nav-mechdef> site navigation mechanisms (for

1.	large blocks of material that are repeated on multiple pages, such
as navigation menus with more than 8 or more links, etc., can be bypassed by
people who use screen readers or who navigate via keyboard or keyboard
interface. [V] 

Level 3 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.4 

1.	there is a statement associated with the content asserting that the
@@insert link to list below in Appendix E were considered. [V] 

a.	breaking up text into logical paragraphs
b.	dividing documents, especially very long ones, into hierarchical
sections and subsections with clear and informative titles
c.	supplying a unique and informative title for each page or resource
that can be accessed independently (for example, from a search results page)
d.	revealing important non-hierarchical relationships, such as
cross-references so that the relationships are represented unambiguously in
the markup or data model.
e.	others?

2.	information is provided that would inddicate at least one logical
sequence in which to read a document. [I] 
3.	diagrams are constructed so that they have
4.html#structuredef#structuredef> structure that users can access. [I] 
4.	logical tab order has been created. [I] 

Editorial Note:  "logical tab order" may not be testable. (Untestable
Success Criteria) 

es.php>  2.4 (navigation-mechanisms) Issues 

Who Benefits from Guideline 2.4 (Informative) 

*	When the logical
4.html#structuredef#structuredef> structure is provided in markup or a data

*	Users with physical disabilities can use structure to more easily
jump between paragraphs, chapters, sections etc.
*	Users with cognitive disabilities can use structure (chapter titles,
headers, etc.) to provide more context for the text that follows them. They
also provide warning of a change in context and reorient the user to the new
*	Users with blindness or low vision can jump from header to header to
get an overview or to more quickly "skim" to the section they are interested
*	Readers with low vision can sometimes (depending on display
technology) change how chapter titles and headers are displayed to make them
more visible -and easier to use when skimming the document.
*	the content can be presented on a variety of devices because the
device software can choose only those elements of the content that it is
able to display and display them in the most effective way for that device.

*	Providing different navigation mechanisms can provide a better match
between different people's skills, background knowledge, visual vs. text
orientation, and the type of information they are seeking at the moment.
*	Individuals with cognitive disabilities may find it easier to ask
for what they want than to deduce its location from categorical choices.
*	Individuals with low vision or blindness may find search techniques
that fetch everything that relates to a topic of interest to be easier than
techniques that require them to scan lists or pages for the items.

Examples of Guideline 2.4 (Informative) 

*	Example 1: a physics dissertation. 

A dissertation contains well-defined sections such as "Abstract," "Table of
Contents," "Chapter 1," etc. The pieces in each section (paragraphs,
subheadings, quotes) are denoted with structural markup.

*	Example 2: a scalable image of a bicycle. 

Lines and a circle (spokes and rim) are grouped into a "wheel." Lines in a
triangle that attach to each wheel are grouped into a "frame."

*	Example 3: user interface. 

User interface controls are divided into organized groups.




Ben Caldwell | <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>

Trace Research and Development Center <http://trace.wisc.edu>   


Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2004 01:12:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:07:33 UTC