FW: [2.4] Updated proposal for GL 2.4

I suggest removing many of the editor's notes from the copy we post out for
public draft  - since they seem more internal than external comments. 

 

Also it should be "delivery unit"

 

That would make it look like the following 

 

 
Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 



Guideline 2.4: Proposed Wording for WCAG 2.0, Nov. 3 2004

 

 

 

 

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

 

1. Structures and relationships within the content can be determined
programmatically.



 

Level 2 success criteria for Guideline 2.4

 

1. Documents that have five or more section headings and are presented as a
single delivery unit include a Table of Contents with links to important
sections of the document.

 

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.

 

Level 3 success criteria for Guideline 2.4

 

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 delivery 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.