- From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
- Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:54:56 -0600
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <6EED8F7006A883459D4818686BCE3B3B294E2A@MAIL01.austin.utexas.edu>
Guideline 2.4: Proposed Wording for WCAG 2.0, Nov. 3 2004 Draft of Guideline 2.4, 15 November 2004. This is an update to the prior proposals submitted to the list on 27 October [1] and 3 November [2]. This draft attempts to address concerns raised in the 28 October call and in Jason White's [3]response to the 3 November proposal. List of 1 items * list end <proposed> Guideline 2.4. Provide methods to help users find content, orient themselves within it, and navigate through it. Level 1 success criteria for Guideline 2.4 List of 1 items 1. Structures and relationships within the content can be determined programmatically. list end Editor's note:This is identical to the wording of Guideline 1.3 L1 SC 1 ("Structures and relationships within the content can be determined programmatically"). Several people who participated in the 28 October call felt that there should be a Level 1 success criterion for this guideline, and that it should be identical or nearly identical to 1.3 L1 SC1. There was some discussion about whether to use exactly the same wording, or just link to 1.3 L1 SC1. There was also some feeling that the reference to "relationships" expressed in 1.3 L1 SC1 would not be appropriate here. Since the only response to the wording proposed on 3 November was a strong comment from Jason that the this SC should be identical to 1.3 L1 SC1, the wording of 1.3 L1 SC1 is used here as well. Level 2 success criteria for Guideline 2.4 List of 3 items 1. Documents that have five or more section headings and are presented as a single perceivable unit include a Table of Contents with links to important sections of the document. Editor's note:This success criterion may become unnecessary if the proposal to make UAAG 1.0 the baseline is adopted. User agents that conform to UAAG 1.0, checkpoints 9.9 (Allow structured navigation [Priority 2]) and 10.4 (Provide outline view [Priority 2]( could create a Table of Contents automatically using structural markup within the document. (There are extensions for Firefox that provide outline view, and there are similar extensions/plug-ins for both IE and Mozilla. However, the UAAG checkpoints referenced above are Priority 2, and we have not yet discussed the level of conformance to UAAG 1.0 that would be required in our baseline. 2. There is more than one way to locate the content of each delivery unit, including but not limited to link groups, a site map, site search or other navigation mechanism. 3. Blocks of repeated material, such as navigation menus and document headers, are marked up so that they can be bypassed by people who use assistive technology or who navigate via keyboard or keyboard interface. [V] Editor's note:General Techniques might include something about satisfying this criterion through metadata, use of a future role attribute, etc. list end Guideline 2.4 L3 List of 6 items 1. When content is arranged in a sequence that affects its meaning, that sequence can be determined programmatically. Editor's note:The problem is how to specify that this SC applies to content that is intended to appear as a sequence without requiring a test for intention. It has been suggested that reading order is already covered by the requirement in 1.3 to make structures and relationships within the content programmatically determinable. If the Working Group and other readers share this view, this could be deleted as a separate SC and the accompanying General Technique could be moved under 1.3. Editor's note:The criterion about reading order would probably be more appropriate under Principle 3: it could be argued that reading order is irrelevant unless it affects the user's ability to understand the content. Reading order in itself is not necessarily an accessibility issue. It becomes an accessibility issue if a user with a disability (such as a visual or cognitive impairment) could not reliably derive a meaningful reading order from the default presentation. If we want to retain this criterion and keep it under 2.4, we need to craft wording that ties reading order to users' ability to operate and use the content. It is not necessarily true that merely exposing structure to the user agent is sufficient to indicate a plausible reading order. The example for the General Technique about reading order is designed to highlight this issue. 2. When a page or other perceivable unit is navigated sequentially, elements receive focus in an order that follows relationships and sequences in the content. 3. Images have structure that users can access. 4. Perceivable units have descriptive titles 5. Text is divided into paragraphs. 6. Documents are divided into hierarchical sections and subsections that have descriptive titles. list end Editor's note:This success criterion is also related to Guideline 1.3 L1 SC1, as follows: if graphical content has structure, it satisfies Guideline 2.4 L3 SC2. If graphical content satisfies Guideline 2.4 L3 SC 2, it must also satisfy Guideline 1.3 L1 SC1 by exposing that structure to user agents. Thus images do not have to include structural markup in order to satisfy Guideline 1.3 L1 SC1. But if the image does include structure, that markup must be exposed to user agents, including assistive technology, in order to satisfy Guideline 1.3 L1 SC2. </proposed> <current> Guideline 2.4 Facilitate the ability of users to orient themselves and move within the content. [level 2 guideline] Level 1 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.4 List of 1 items 1. No level 1 success criteria for this guideline. list end Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.4 List of 2 items (contains 1 nested list) 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: What's a perceived page? What if it's a voice XML application? How does it apply to Web applications? Why 50 and 50,000? List of 3 items nesting level 1 A. hierarchical structure, B. table of contents (for pages) or site map (for sites), C. alternate display order (for pages) or alternate site navigation mechanisms (for sites). list end nesting level 1 2. Large blocks of material that are repeated on multiple pages, such as navigation menus with more than 8 or more links, can be bypassed by people who use screen readers or who navigate via keyboard or keyboard interface. [V] list end Level 3 Success Criteria for Guideline 2.4 List of 5 items (contains 1 nested list) 1. Information is provided that would indicate at least one logical sequence in which to read a document. [I] 2. Diagrams are constructed so that they have structure that users can access. [I] 3. Logical tab order has been created. [I] Editorial Note: "logical tab order" may not be testable. 4. Each page or other resource that can be accessed separately and that supports a title has a title that identifies the subject or purpose of the resource. [I] Editorial Note: We need to define "accessed separately" to clarify that what is being titled is a piece of content in its entirety vs. individual elements or portions of the content. 5. There is a statement associated with the content asserting that items from the following list were considered: [V] List of 3 items nesting level 1 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. Revealing important non-hierarchical relationships, such as cross-references so that the relationships are represented unambiguously in the markup or data model. Editorial Note: Are there any others? list end nesting level 1 list end </current> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004OctDec/0199.html#star t [2] http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/issuereports/navigation-mechanisms_i ssues.php#491 [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004OctDec/0262.html#star t "Good design is accessible design." Dr. John M. Slatin, Director Accessibility Institute University of Texas at Austin FAC 248C 1 University Station G9600 Austin, TX 78712 ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524 email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu Web <http://www.ital.utexas.edu/> http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility
Received on Tuesday, 16 November 2004 03:54:59 UTC