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

RE: UBER 3.1 proposal Improved

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 01:07:41 -0600
To: 'Sailesh Panchang' <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <0HTM00JVPP4Q5M@smtp3.doit.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: UBER 3.1 proposal Improved


Sorry, perhaps I am late in presenting my thoughts. I am unsure if these
issues have already been discussed. 
I am going backwards from level 3 to level 1:from 


For #1 of Level 3 criteria:
The link gives a not found error.


GV:  Yes - it is not done yet.  Like should not have been included yet.
Has been removed.


For #2 of Level 3 criteria:
The term _contracted words_ is unclear. Another criteria refers to acronyms
and abbreviations. So what are contracted words?


GV:  see other discussion on this list.  There are acronyms, abbreviations,
contractions and many other ways that words are made smaller by the removal
of letters.   This term was meant to be a general one that covered them all
even though not all the subcategories exist in all languages.   Looks like a
definition would be a good thing to add.


For #3 of Level 3 criteria:
Is it "intended meaning" or "desired meaning "? Should it be :
"3. Where a word has multiple meanings and the intended meaning is not the
first in the associated dictionary(s), then additional markup or another
for determining the correct one is provided."


GV:  it is the meaning that the author intended to convey.   Good edit.  


For #1 of Level 2 criteria:
Ability to determine pronounciation of words  based on language spec in the
content is a feature of assistive technology / user agents. That language be
declared in the content has already been specified as a criteria (level 1-#1
and level 2-#3). So if there are other means by which  meaning and
pronounciation  of words can be programatically located based on
characteristics of the content, then this criteria should state that the
content have those characteristics (other than language spec). It is then up
to user agents / AT to programatically locate    meaning / pronounciation of
words. Or does the onus for programatic location lie on the  content author?


GV: the intent of this is to put the onus on the author.   The viewer may
have no idea where to find the meaning of "StickyKeys" or other specialized
terms -  in their native language or in another. 


For #2 of Level 2 criteria:
Again the criteria should state what content author  needs to do to
facilitate user agents / assistive technology   to programatically determine
meaning of idioms. It is unreasonable to expect content authors to know this
process. It will be great if there is a method to programmatically
determined meanings of  idioms in the content. : 
An idiom is  "a speech  form or an expression of a given language that is
peculiar to itself grammatically or cannot be understood from the individual
meanings of its
Will it not be a challenge  to programatically figure out an idiom's


GV: the goal was to give the objective here - -and the techniques for doing
it in the techniques doc.   We had more specific language here but the wg
removed it in favor of more general language - with specifics in the


For #1 and #2 of Level 2 criteria:
 Same argument. The criteria should say what it is that  content should have
so that automated tools / user agents / AT  can decipher natural language or
expansion of acronyms and abbreviations.


GV:  Same as above.


So generally speaking , the criteria should not refer to automated tools /
user agents / AT but just state the characteristics required of the content.
It is alright to refer to these tools / agents   in a justification or
reasoning for the criteria.  


GV:  yes - this is the conflict.   Be specific but don't be specific (or you
constrain solutions).  Suggestions?



Lastly, I believe  the statement of the guideline itself begs a question: by
"Guideline 3.1. Ensure that the meaning of content can be determined"


GV:  clearly it is by the user.  Do we need to add that to the end?



Thanks for the comments and edits.   See you Thursday. 


Sailesh Panchang
Senior Accessibility Engineer 
Deque Systems,11180  Sunrise Valley Drive, 
4th Floor, Reston VA 20191
Tel: 703-225-0380 Extension 105 
E-mail: sailesh.panchang@deque.com
Fax: 703-225-0387
* Look up <http://www.deque.com> *



----- Original Message ----- 

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu>  

To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org 

Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 1:20 AM

Subject: FW: UBER 3.1 proposal Improved


The following text  for levels 1 and 2  was the result of the working group
call last Thursday.

The rest is the text -is from the original proposal - the group will be
reviewing it as well as all final level assignments as it continues
discussions next week.




Guideline 3.1. Ensure that the meaning of content can be determined

Level 1 success criteria for 3.1

1.	The natural language of the document as a whole can be identified by
automated tools. 
2.	The meaning of abbreviations and acronyms can be programmatically

Level 2 success criteria for 3.1

1.	The meanings and pronunciations of all words in the content can be
programmatically located. 
2.	The meaning of all idioms in the content can be programmatically
3.	All passages or phrases in the body of the content that are in a
language other than the primary natural language of the content have their
language identified through markup or other means.   [Note: does not include
use of foreign words in text where such usage is standard extension of the

Level 3 success criteria for 3.1

1.	There is a statement associated with the content asserting that the
Strategies for Reducing the Complexity of Content in Appendix E were
considered. http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/complex-content-notes 
2.	The meaning of contracted words can be programmatically determined. 
3.	Where a word has multiple meanings and the desired meaning is not
the first in the associated dictionary(s), then additional markup or another
mechanism for determining the correct meaning is provided. 

Possible items for additions to level 3

1.	Paragraphs develop a single topic or subtopic. 
2.	Section headings and linked text are understandable when read by
themselves (for example, in a screen reader's list of links or a table of
3.	Page titles are informative and unique. 




Programmatically Located - means that the meaning can be found - though
there may be multiple meanings for a word. 

One technique that is being explored is the use of the cascading
dictionaries directly associated with the content. 

NOTE:  This provision is dependent on the definition of a standard way to
associate dictionaries and the availability of on-line dictionaries.

Programmatically Determined - means that the specific meaning can be



The following success criteria were removed because they require the author
to define the intended audience. There is no way to test this since there is
no way for anyone but the author to know who the intended audience is or
even if they intended to include people with disabilities in their audience.

1.	The resource uses vocabulary which is widely used by members of the
intended audience. 
2.	The length and complexity of sentences are consistent with
recommended best practices for the intended audience, such as those found in
current textbooks about writing in the audience's field or discipline. 

The following success criteria are not machine or human inter-rater reliably

1.	The document uses page design, graphics, color, fonts, animations,
video, or audio to clarify complex text as necessary. (necessary for who?) 
2.	inclusion of non-text content to supplement text for key pages or
sections of the site where they felt it was appropriate. (where who thought
it was appropriate?) 





1.	add a definition of text to address "representation in Unicode"
issue  (and remove need for a checkpoint on this) 

a.	text -  Content expressed as characters that are in Unicode or can
be automatically translated into Unicode. 

2.	add a definition to the glossary for Unicode to address issue 673
(would be linked from the definitions above and below as well as from the
relevant SC 
3.	add unicode to the definition of non-text content: 

a.	non-text content includes but is not limited to images, text in
raster images, image map regions, animations (e.g., animated GIFs), ASCII
art, images used as list bullets, spacers, graphical buttons, sounds (played
with or without user interaction), stand-alone audio files, audio tracks of
video, and video. it also includes any text that can not be translated into

4.	add a link to the definition of text and non-text content to the new
definition of "text" 
5.	add a note in guideline 1.1 

a.	note: characters that are not in Unicode or can not be automatically
mapped to Unicode are not text. 

6.	 add a definition of ASCII art to address Issue 420 

a.	ASCII art - Graphic representations that are created by a spatial
arrangement of text characters. Although it can be rendered on a text
display, it is not text. 






Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
<http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848  
For a list of our list discussions http://trace.wisc.edu/lists/



Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2004 02:08:07 UTC

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