Proposals for 2.4
Issues that can be closed by explaining to the original authors
434 (decided last telecon), 564, 859, 1169, 1395, 1387, 1392, 1393, 1394
Issues that can be closed by making changes to the examples
See attached document with examples.
510, 676, 946, 948, 1389, 1392
- Added example of logical reading order (from general techniques) as John
Slatin suggested. This addresses part of issue 946.
- Added example about different ways to find content. This addresses issue
- Expanded example about scalable image with structure to make it clearer
that you need a technology that supports doing that and that this is about
web content. Also changed the example from bike to map so it makes more sense
to use such a technology. This addresses issue 510 and 1392.
- Changed example about audio presentation. This addresses issue 948.
- Deleted the word 'subtle' from example 1 to address issue 676
829, 1388, 1506, 1016, 1130, 1214, 1136, 1137, 1319, 808
- What to do about SC about reading order? We have proposals to move
it from level 3 to level 1 and to delete it. This addresses issues 829,
The trend on the lists seems to go towards moving it to level 1. Wendy suggested
creating a broader SC for level 1. The rationale for this SC isn't clear:
some people think it's about reading order, others think it's about allowing
keyboard navigation. Becky points out that part of the problems today come
from the fact that AT don't fully understand CSS yet. Let's discuss what
to do, vote on a level and then create action items.
- Shall we delete SC1 "Structures and relationships within the
content can be programmatically determined." because that's covered
by 1.3? This addresses issue 1388.
Deleting this SC does create a problem with
the 'who benefits' section as there are a lot of benefits from this SC that
involve the ability to find content, orient yourself in it or navigate through
it. What do we do with the 2.4-specific benefits for providing structure and
relationships if we delete the SC from 2.4?
- Do we want to keep the benefit of jumping from header to header?
Issue 808. Becky feels it's too HTML specific and wonders if all web technologies
have the concept of headers. If not, action item to write a new benefit?
- Accept new wording of examples (see above)
- New wording for 2.4 L3 SC2: "Blocks of repeated material are
implemented so that they can be bypassed by people who use assistive technology
who navigate via keyboard or keyboard interface." Issue 1506.
- Do we need a new SC for "a sitemap is needed if you cannot
access every page of the site from every other page of the site"?
Issue 1016. Might conflict with baseline-free assumption. John Slatin feels
an instance of L2 SC 2 so doesn't need another criterion. If we decide to
add an extra SC, assign action item to formulate proposal.
- Do we need another SC that requires
explicit links to the most important parts of the content or do we think
this can be solved in techniques? The discussion on the lists seems to favor
solving this in techniques. Issue 1130, 1214 (skiplink). If new SC, then
we action item to formulate proposed
- Do we want a SC to identify 'necessary' links? Issue 1136. If so,
action item to formulate proposal.
- Do we want a SC to require labelling referenced units (for example,
give frames a title-attribute). Issue 1319. If yes, action item to formulate
- Should we delete L3 SC3 - "Images have structure that users
can access" because
it assumes a baseline? Issue 1507
- What shall we do about "Text is divided into paragraphs"? Prompted
by 1137 and 1393. John Slatin raised the interesting point of how dividing
paragraphs helps users find content, orient themselves in it or navigate
through it. Doesn't this SC belong in principle 3? Becky feels this SC is
covered by "Structures and relationships within the content can be programmatically
determined". Dividing text into paragraphs could be a technique for
that. What to do: leave it, delete it or move it to principle 3?
- "Header" or "Heading"? The terms seem to be synonymous and we use both
terms in our documents. For clarity, I think we should chose 1.
955, 1389, 1390, 1503, 1504, 1508, 808
- Create techniques and/or guide text for creating tables of content and/or
sitemaps that include information about presentation modes (issue 955)
- Clarify the use of 'document' either through a definition (of document)
or a Note: related to the criterion.
- Create techniques for effective use of metadata
- Create new baseline-free wording for "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. " Issue 1503.
- Create new baseline-free wording for "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.". Issue 1504.
- Explore impact of not setting a baseline for 2.4 L3 SC 5 & 6. Issue 1508
- Formulate new proposal for generic version of 'text
is divided into paragraphs' and
Part of 1214 (WAI group is discussing harmonization)
Reassign to other guideline or 'problem domain'
1131, 1132, 1394
- 3.1 has a success criteria that deals with understandability of links that
we could link techniques to. Propose to move ssue 1131 over to that.
- We might need a new success criterion to provide a progressive complexity
for both site and page content, so that people with different abilities may
same Web site. Belongs in 3.1 instead. Issue 1132. John Slatin is working on
a proposal that covers this topic.
- Prompted by 1394: We need to add additional paragraph about WCAG does
not guarantee accessibility to the intro. A new issue was created for this
it's no longer
a 2.4 concern.