- From: Kelly Ford <kford@windows.microsoft.com>
- Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 17:28:00 -0800
- To: WAI-UA list <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
I think an interesting level III criteria might call for some explanation of the browser user interface. Keyboard shortcuts and such are great documented in help but as software becomes more and more visual, some explanation of what's going on might be a nice level III item. I recognize that one goal of accessibility is that you don't necessarily need to perceive the interface in one (visual) way but still having some orientation to what's going on could help in some settings. Kelly -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jan Richards Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 11:57 AM To: WAI-UA list Subject: UAAG Guideline 12 Gaps As per one of my action items from Oct. 25 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2007OctDec/0018.html): Overall, if we go to a WCAG or ATAG-like, multi-level success criteria model, all of 12 would likely roll together into one guideline (see at end of this message). 12.1 Provide accessible documentation (P1) - no pre-existing issues in the Wiki - I suggest we might consider synching with ATAG 2.0 on this: <quote> A.4.4.1 Accessible Format (user interface "chrome"): At least one version of the documentation must either be: - "A" Accessible: Web content and conform to a minimum level of Web content accessibility (although it is not necessary for the documentation to be delivered on-line), or - Accessible Platform Format: not be Web content and conform to a published accessibility benchmark that is identified in the conformance claim (e.g., when platform-specific documentation systems are used). </quote> @@note "accessibility benchmark" is an ATAG term@@ 12.2 Provide documentation of accessibility features (P1) - In ATAG 2.0 this is handled by a success criteria in a Guideline "A.4.4 Document the user interface including all accessibility features" <quote> A.4.4.2 Document Accessibility Features (user interface "chrome"): All features that are specifically required to meet Part A of these guidelines (e.g. keyboard shortcuts, text search, etc.) must be documented. </quote> - ATAG 2.0 also includes a P3 requirement for a "tutorial" that might be useful in a user agent? 12.3 Provide documentation of default bindings (P1) - agree with our prev. issue to remove the sufficient technique - I think perhaps that this checkpoint could be a success criteria for 11.5. 12.4 Provide documentation of changes between versions (P2) - no pre-existing issues in the Wiki - suggest defining "user agent to features that benefit accessibility" with reference to features needed to meet UAAG. 12.5 Provide dedicated accessibility section (P2) - This is just a P2 modifier to 12.2 =================================== Rolling it all together: Guideline 12.X: Document the user interface including all accessibility features. Level A Success Criteria -Accessible Format: At least one version of the documentation must either be: + "A" Accessible: Web content and conform to a minimum level of Web content accessibility (although it is not necessary for the documentation to be delivered on-line), or + Accessible Platform Format: not be Web content but be an accessible format@@needs work@@ (e.g., when platform-specific documentation systems are used). - Document Accessibility Features: All *user agent features that benefit accessibility* (i.e., involved in meeting these guidelines, e.g. keyboard shortcuts, text search, etc.) must be documented. Level AA Success Criteria - Provide documentation of the default user agent input configuration (e.g., the default keyboard bindings). - Provide documentation of changes since the previous version of all *user agent features that benefit accessibility*. - In a dedicated section of the documentation, provide a centralized view of all *user agent features that benefit accessibility*. Level AAA Success Criteria @@NEW IDEA@@- Accessible Browsing Tutorial: A tutorial on how to use the tool's accessibility features together is provided. @@NEW IDEA@@ - In documenting *user agent features that benefit accessibility* include information on behavior of features if accessibility information in the content is missing or broken. =================================== Cheers, Jan -- Jan Richards, M.Sc. User Interface Design Specialist Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC) Faculty of Information Studies University of Toronto Email: jan.richards@utoronto.ca Web: http://jan.atrc.utoronto.ca Phone: 416-946-7060 Fax: 416-971-2896
Received on Monday, 5 November 2007 01:28:17 UTC