RE: Instruction and Assessment

One weakness of this recommendation is that not all accessibility features
are identified as such.  For example, Windows settings for foreground and
background colors are considered to be just interface features, but can make
content difficult of impossible to access for people with visual
limitations.  

Denis Anson, MS, OTR/L
Assistant Professor
College Misericordia
301 Lake St.
Dallas, PA 18612
 

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org]On Behalf
Of Hansen, Eric
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 2:13 PM
To: 'Ian Jacobs'; Hansen, Eric
Cc: 'Jon Gunderson '; 'UA List (E-mail) '
Subject: RE: Instruction and Assessment

I can see what you are saying about the difference in priority. Here is
another way to handle this that I think makes more overall sense...

Change checkpoint 6.1, which is P1 to encompass "all features of implemented
specifications", including accessibility features.

New:

"6.1 Implement the features of all implemented specifications (markup
languages, style sheet languages, metadata languages, graphics formats,
etc.). This includes accessibility features of a specification, which are
those identified as such and those that satisfy all of the requirements of
the "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" [WCAG10]. [Priority 1]"

Old (26 January 2001):

"6.1 Implement the accessibility features of all implemented specifications
(markup languages, style sheet languages, metadata languages, graphics
formats, etc.). The accessibility features of a specification are those
identified as such and those that satisfy all of the requirements of the
"Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0" [WCAG10]. [Priority 1]"

The advantage of this is that it makes guideline 6 cover everything about
conformance to specifications and guideline 2 cover display of content
through the user interface.

To carry things a bit further, I would recommend considering a reordering of
the guidelines.

GL 1 (old GL 6) - Ensure conformance to specifications
GL 2 (old GL 2) - Display content through the user interface
GL 3 (old GL 1) - Support input and output device independence
GL 4 (old GL 3)
GL 5 (old GL 4)
GL 6 (old GL 5)
GL 7 (same)
GL 8 (same)
GL 9 (same)
GL 10 (same)

I think that the reordering is sensible because it puts guideline 6 up front
where it belongs. It seems to me that we are placing greater reliance on the
checkpoints in guideline 6 that ever before and it is time to give it the
prominence that it deserves.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Jacobs [mailto:ij@w3.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 12:54 PM
> To: Hansen, Eric
> Cc: 'Jon Gunderson '; 'UA List (E-mail) '
> Subject: Re: Instruction and Assessment
>
>
> "Hansen, Eric" wrote:
> >
> > And if so, why do we really need to say it at all, since
> conformance to
> > specifications is an assumption underlying the whole document?
>
> The difference is priority: 6.2 is P2.
> 
> > If this is the case, then the first sentence of checkpoint
> 2.1 could be
> > deleted.
> >
> > In that case, we would have the following:
> >
> > New:
> >
> > "2.1 Provide a view (e.g., a document source view) of the
> text portions of
> > content. This is only required for formats defined by
> specifications that
> > the user agent implements. [Priority 1]"
> > Old (26 January 2001):
> >
> > Old:
> >
> > "2.1 Make all content available through the user interface.
> As part of
> > meeting this requirement, provide a view (e.g., a document
> source view) of
> > the text portions of content. This is only required for
> formats defined by
> > specifications that the user agent implements. [Priority 1]"
>
> [snip]
>
> > EH:
> >
> > Here is a revision of the checkpoint that pertains to
> content produced by
> > the user agent.
> >
> > New:
> >
> > "1.3 Ensure that every message (e.g., prompt, alert,
> notification, etc.)
> > that is a non-text element and is part of the user agent
> user interface has
> > AN AVAILABLE text equivalent. [Priority 1]"
> >
> > Old (26 January 2001):
> >
> > "1.3 Ensure that every message (e.g., prompt, alert,
> notification, etc.)
> > that is a non-text element and is part of the user agent
> user interface has
> > a text equivalent. [Priority 1]"
> >
> > Comment on revised checkpoint 1.3. This change makes
> explicit that the text
> > equivalent must be available to the user.
>
> I agree with this, though I am not sure it adds significantly to the
> checkpoint.
>
>  _ Ian
>
> --
> Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
> Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
> Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
>

Received on Tuesday, 30 January 2001 14:18:06 UTC