This is a general usability matter; while doing well on this helps PWD, it is not clear that it meets your claimed requirement for inclusion that there be a markedly disproportionate effect on the experience of the PWD user.
Proposed Change:
Re-state filter criterion for practices in terms of "do cover usability enhancements that are readily achievable and make major contributions to mitigating PWD hazards in the browse experience. But generally good usability practices that have a generally comparable benefit for PWD and TAB users are not covered here." I.e. lead with positive because navigation, view controls, and labeling/prompting are general usability strategies and are of the essence in securing a Web that works for PWD.
Thank you for your comment. We have adopted your proposed wording in the Introduction.
SC 3.2.4 explicitly outlines benefits to people with disabilities in the "Intent of this success criterion" section of How To Meet SC 3.2.4. The intent of this success criterion is to ensure consistent identification of functional components that appear repeatedly within a set of Web pages. A strategy that people who use screen readers use when operating a Web site is to rely heavily on their familiarity with functions that may appear on different Web pages. If identical functions have different labels on different Web pages, the site will be considerably more difficult to use. It may also be confusing and increase the cognitive load for people with cognitive limitations. Therefore, consistent labeling will help.
Developed and maintained by Jon Hardin at the Trace Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
$Date: 2007/05/17 13:52:57 $ $Author: bcaldwel $