Techniques Gateway for WCAG 2.0
W3C Working Draft XXX
- This version:
-
XXX
- Latest version:
-
XXX
- Previous version:
-
XXX
- Editors:
- Wendy Chisholm, W3C
Jason White, University of Melbourne
Checkpoint 1.1 Provide a text equivalent for
all non-text content.
- all non-text content is explicitly associated with a text equivalent
(images have alt-text, movies have collated text transcripts, animations
have descriptions, interactive scripts have a functional equivalent such
as a form, audio files have a text transcript),
- Further information is technology-specific. e.g. use alt on IMG in X/HTML, etc.
- the text equivalent fulfills the same function and conveys the same
information as the non-text content.
Note: Depending on the purpose and content of the non-text content, a
short label may be appropriate, or a more thorough explanation may be
required,
- To write a description, refer to
Excerpts from NBA Tape Recording Manual
- To write a short text equivalent...
- For a spacer image...
- For a bullet...
- For a horizontal rule...
- i.e. a combination of info from
AERT - Checkpoint 1.1 and
WCAG 1.0 Core Techniques - Text Equivalents.
- Illustrate the examples from the checkpoint (logos, photos, submit buttons, etc.)
- "interactive scripts have a functional equivalent..." can be described in core
and developed further in scripting specific techniques. However, this concept in general
needs to be explored further.
- where it is not possible to describe the non-text content in words or
for text to provide the same function as the non-text content, a label
identifying the content is provided.
- Not technology specific. Put info and examples here.
e.g. Mona Lisa or Beethoven's 5th. Label them as such rather than trying to describe.
Checkpoint 1.2 Provide synchronized media equivalents for time-dependent presentations.
- all significant visual cues in scenes, actions and events are
described.
If there are not sufficient breaks in dialogue to provide an audio
description for all visual cues and you are unable to freeze the action
frequently to insert description, describe as much as possible or give
abbreviated descriptions or descriptions later or earlier when there is
time,
- Not technology-specific. Put info and examples here.
- all significant dialogue and sounds are captioned.
- Not technology-specific. Put info and exmaples here. Refer to
Audio Information
and Visual
Motion and Information from the Core Techniques for WCAG 1.0.
- descriptions and captions are synchronized with the events they
represent to within a tolerance of X. Should this
criterion be deleted? Should we say instead "to within a reasonable
tolerance"?
- Technology specific. e.g. refer to
Accessibility Features of SMIL
- if the Web content is a real-time broadcast, it is possible to provide
real-time commentary (as with a sporting event) and real-time captioning.
If this creates an undue burden, the presentation is available
after-the-fact with captions and audio descriptions.Is
this correct? Can we express it better?
- Requires development of both core techniques and technology-specific.
Checkpoint 1.3 Use markup or a data
model to provide the logical structure of content.
- the hierarchical structure of the content is unambiguously represented
in the markup or data model,
- The non-technology aspect of this success criterion is related to types of content.
A portal site will have a different logical structure than a long document.
- Since the structure must be represented in the markup, there are lots of
technology-specifics to cover.
- important non-hierarchical relationships, such as cross-references, or
the correspondence between header and data cells in a table, are
represented unambiguously in the markup or data model.
- The non-technology aspect of this success criterion is related to types of content.
A portal site will have a different logical structure than a long document.
- Since the structure must be represented in the markup, there are lots of
technology-specifics to cover.
Checkpoint 1.4 Identify the primary natural
language of text and text equivalents and all changes in natural
language.
- changes in language are identified at the level the changes occur.
Note: If there is never a change throughout a whole site, then
identification can occur at the highest level (usually at a page or
document level). If changes occur at the word or phrase level, then
changes should be identified at the word or phrase level using the markup
appropriate to the markup language in use.
- Technology specific. e.g. refer to the Language section in the latest
HTML Techniques
for WCAG 2.0 draft (eeeks. no targets! pls search for "language" until a new draft
is published...apologies...).
Checkpoint 1.5 Separate content and structure
from presentation.
- sufficient markup or a sufficient data model is provided to ensure that
a logical, linear reading order can be derived from the content,
- The non-technology aspect of this success criterion is related to types of content.
A portal site will have a different logical structure than a long document.
- Since the structure must be represented in the markup, there are lots of
technology-specifics to cover.
- the markup or data model representing the structure of the content is
logically separated from the presentation that is either by using separate
data structures or a style sheet to control presentation.
- Since the structure must be represented in the markup, there are lots of
technology-specifics to cover.
- Types of models rather than types of content as with 1.3?
PDF vs CSS will separate structure from presentation differently.
Checkpoint 2.1 Provide multiple site navigation
mechanisms.
- one or more navigation mechanisms are provided that cover all or
selected portions of the content comprising a Web site, Delete "all or selected portions"? Delete "one or more" and
substitute "two or more" to bring success criteria into line with
checkpoint?
- Core techniques: provide overview. related to 1.3 and 1.5.
- Tech-specifics: examples. site map, search, index, etc. Particulary related
to server-side techniques.
- the site navigation mechanisms are clearly distinguished from the main
content to make them easy to locate.
- Checkpoints 1.3 and 1.5 "enforce" consistency through structure and markup. If these
are followed, then this criteria should be met as a side-effect.
- If content types are developed in relation to checkpoints 1.3 and 1.5, will it reduce the
need for this checkpoint?
Checkpoint 2.2 Provide consistent
and predictable responses to user actions.
- similar layout for user interface components is used throughout your
site,
- Discussion with examples will go here.
Perhaps provide some technology-specific examples.
- similar user interface components are labelled with similar
terminology,
- Discussion with examples will go here.
Perhaps provide some technology-specific examples.
- controls that look the same are designed to act the same,
- Discussion with examples will go here.
Perhaps provide some technology-specific examples.
- operating system, language, or application conventions likely to be
familiar to the user have been followed,
- Need technology-specific exmaples with some overview info in Core Techniques.
- unusual user interface features or behaviors that are likely to confuse
the first-time user are documented.
- Discussion with examples will go here.
Perhaps provide some technology-specific examples.
Checkpoint 2.3 Either give users
control of mechanisms that cause extreme changes in context or warn them of
pending changes.
- a method is provided for the user to deactivate processes or features
that cause extreme changes in context. The method:
is easily identified on the primary page of a multi-document
site,
once selected, applies to further interactions on the site.
- The success criteria for checkpoint 2.3 are an either/or. Therefore, they will likely be
handled a bit differently than the rest of the success criteria, right?
- Provide core exmaple and technology specifics. e.g.
- script examples
- in HTML: if a has target="new" then you must...
- or extreme changes in context are identified before they occur so the
user can determine if they wish to proceed or so they can be prepared for
the change.
- The success criteria for checkpoint 2.3 are an either/or. Therefore, they will likely be
handled a bit differently than the rest of the success criteria, right?
- Provide core exmaple and technology specifics. e.g.
- script examples
- in HTML: if a has target="new" then you must...
Checkpoint 2.4 Either give users
control over how long they can interact with content that requires a timed
response or give them as much time as possible.
- the user is allowed to deactivate automatic updating or
- technology-specifics: form or client-side scripting
- the user is warned before time expires and allowed to extend the time
available to them or
- technology-specifics: server-side
- the user is allowed to set how often the content is updated (in seconds)
or
- technology-specifics: server-side/form
- the user is given as much time as possible.
- show previous examples w/out time limit?
Checkpoint 2.5 Use device-independent
event handlers.
- generic event handlers are used instead of event handlers that require a
specific input device,
- Technology specifics needed.
- more than one device-specific event handler is used if generic event
handlers are not available.
- Technology specifics needed.
Checkpoint 2.6 Avoid causing the screen to
flicker.
- content does not flicker between 4 and 49 Hz.
- Technology-specific research needed.
Checkpoint 2.7 Handle input errors,
such as misspellings.
- checks for misspelled words are applied and correct spellings are
suggested when text entry is required,
- Technology-specific examples.
- where possible, the user is allowed to select from a list of options
rather than generate text.
- Technology-specific examples.
Checkpoint 3.1 Use consistent
presentation.
- items with similar function have a similar presentation.
- Reliance on 1.3 and 1.5. Primary checks in core. Examples in tech-specifics.
Checkpoint 3.2 Emphasize structure
through presentation, positioning, and labels.
- a unique style is created for each structural element
Note: styles include differences in size, appearance, position and may be
subtly distinct.
- technology-specific examples are needed.
- where appropriate, differences in structure are labeled,
- technology-specific examples are needed.
- where possible, these differences are highlighted in styles for a
variety of output media including large screen, small screen, speech,
braille, tty, etc.
- Specifically address the different media types? Within tech-specifics address media types?
Checkpoint 3.3 Write as clearly and
simply as is appropriate for the content.
- the audience is anticipated to have a wider range of educational levels
and background knowledge than expected, This criterion
seems meaningless and also condescending, in assuming that the content
developer's initial judgments regarding the background of the intended
audience are faulty. What should we say instead? What factors is it
legitimate to take into account in defining the "intended audience" of a
text?
- Not technology-specific.
- Need to help people understand the circumstances for when to employ these.
- Look at the work
by Lisa, Graham, and Charles and the November F2F.
- language is used that your intended audience ought to be familiar
with,
- Not technology-specific.
- Need to help people understand the circumstances for when to employ these.
- Look at the work
by Lisa, Graham, and Charles and the November F2F.
- when introducing new concepts or terms, they are defined or annotated in
language that the audience should be familiar with or definitions or
explanations are linked to that might be easier to understand.
- This is the same as checkpoint 3.5. Perhaps instead of having a separate checkpoint
leave this success criteria? Either way, it requries technology-specific examples and info.
Checkpoint 3.4 Supplement text with
non-text content.
Checkpoint 3.5 Annotate complex,
abbreviated, or unfamiliar information with summaries and definitions.
- a definition or link to a definition is provided for phrases, words,
acronyms, and abbreviations specific to a particular community. Should this criterion be restricted to the first occurrence
of an acronym or abbreviation, as in WCAG 1.0?
- Technology-specific examples.
- Information about deciding when to provide in core techniques.
- a summary is provided for
relationships among cells for tables with nested headings,
relationships among cells that span multiple columns or rows,
or other relationships that may not be obvious from analyzing the
structure of the table but that may be apparent in a visual rendering
of the table.
A summary may also describe how the table fits into the context of the
current document.
- Technology-specific examples.
- Information about deciding when to provide in core techniques.
Checkpoint 4.1 Choose technologies
that support the use of these guidelines.
- permits equivalents to be associated with or synchronized with auditory,
graphical, and multimedia content,
- In core techniques - info about how to choose.
- Reference XAG - this be the "technology-specific" piece?
- allows the logical structure of the content to be defined independently
of presentation,
- In core techniques - info about how to choose.
- Reference XAG - this be the "technology-specific" piece?
- supports device-independence,
- In core techniques - info about how to choose.
- Reference XAG - this be the "technology-specific" piece?
- is documented in published specifications and can be implemented by user
agent and assistive technology developers,
- In core techniques - info about how to choose.
- Reference XAG - this be the "technology-specific" piece?
- is supported by user agents and assistive technologies.
- In core techniques - info about how to choose.
- Reference XAG - this be the "technology-specific" piece?
Checkpoint 4.2 Use technologies
according to specification.
- for markup: the markup has passed validity tests of the language
(whether it be conforming to a schema, DTD, or other tests described in
the specification), structural elements and attributes are used as defined
in the specification, accessibility features are used, and deprecated
features are avoided. Issue: should there be a
qualification or exception for backward-compatibility? If so, under what
circumstances should it apply? Alternatively, if an implementor decides to
use invalid markup for backward-compatibility reasons, shouldn't they be
"honest" and indicate that they haven't satisfied this
checkpoint?
- Technology-specific examples, refer to specifications.
- for api's: programming standards for the language are followed and
accessibility api's are used when available.
- Technology-specific examples, refer to specifications.
Checkpoint 4.3 Design user interfaces
compatible with assistive technology.
- accessibility conventions of the markup or programming language (API's
or specific markup) are used,
- Technology-specifics. e.g. Accessibility features of SMIL, SVG.
- any applications with custom interfaces conform to at least Level A of
UAAG 1.0. If the application cannot be made accessible, an alternative
accessible solution is provided,
- Some explantation in Core, then "tech-specifics" is UAAG and UAAG techs.
- device-independent access to functionality is provided,
- Device indie event handlers. Redundant with that?
- the interface has been tested using a variety of assistive technologies
and preferably real people with disabilities who use assistive
technologies to determine that assistive technologies can access all
information on the page or hidden within the page.
Issue: it would be possible to comply with the
checkpoint without carrying out tests (either with users or with assistive
technologies). Conversely, it is possible to conduct tests, but still fail
to meet the checkpoint (with respect to assistive technologies that were
not tested, for example). Should this success criterion be
deleted?
- Provide info in Core Techniques.
Checkpoint 4.4 Ensure that content
remains usable when technologies that modify default user agent processing or
behavior are turned off or not supported.
for technologies that associate presentation with structure, the content
is still usable and readable by the user even if stylistic or scripting
technologies are not supported or turned off.
Technology-specifics. Primarily CSS/HTML Techniques. Will be a side benefit if
good structure is used.