Proposed Level 3 success criterion for Guideline 3.1

Proposed Level 3 Success Criterion for Guideline 3.1

I think the following proposal for a level 3 success criterion comes
close to something Lisa Seaman, Bengt Farre, and Avi Arditi proposed for
the old 3.3 following the 2002 face to face meeting in Linz; it's
dropped out of the discussion along the way, but I think the current
structure for Guideline 3.1 can accommodate it as a criterion at Level
3.  It probably belongs at Level 3 because it may not be required for
all sites; it *can* be a success criterion because it's testable.

<begin proposed>

Words, phrases, and/or sentences that are essential to understanding
documents or sections of documents are identified through semantic
markup or context.</end proposed>

 

Examples of semantic markup used in this way include but are not limited
to those Lisa Seaman has sent to the list. Examples of how key words,
phrases, and sentences could be identified through context include but
are not limited to visual and aural highlighting of words, phrases,
and/or sentences; sidebars headed "Key Points" and listing key points;
graphical icons (for example, an exclamation point) with appropriate alt
text (for example, alt="Important information!")

 


"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/>