W3C

Techniques For Evaluation And Implementation Of Web Content Accessibility Guidelines

W3C Working Draft 04-February-2000

This version:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert/ert-20000204.html
Latest version:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert/
Previous version:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/IG/ert/ert-20000128.html
Editors:
Chris Ridpath, Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University of Toronto-- Canada
Wendy Chisholm, W3C

Abstract

This document describes techniques that may be used by software programs in evaluating the conformance of HTML documents to The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. It also describes methods that may be used in software programs for modifying HTML documents so that they conform to these guidelines.

Status Of This Document

This is a W3C Working Draft for review by the Evaluation and Repair Tools Working Group and other invited parties. It has not been reviewed by the WAI Interest Group. It is a draft document and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use W3C Working Drafts as reference material or to cite them as other than "work in progress". A list of current W3C Recommendations and other technical documents can be found at http://www.w3.org/TR.

Please send comments on this document to w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org.

To do

Table of Contents


Introduction

The Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) has produced a foundation document, The WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 1.0), that describes what must be done to make a Web page accessible to all. Tools are needed to help authors determine if a web site is accessible to everyone and to help repair it if it is not.

This document builds on the WCAG 1.0 foundation by outlining techniques that evaluation and repair tools may use to uncover accessibility problems and possibly repair them. These techniques may be used by those who create web authoring tools or by anyone interested in creating accessible Web documents.

It is important that people with disabilities are included in the "anyone interested in creating accessible Web content." Creating accessible Web content is as important as accessing Web content. Therefore, evaluation and repair tools themselves need to be accessible to people with disabilities. However, this document does not describe how to make the user interface accessible. Please refer to the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 for information on making the user interface accessible.

Many people using evaluation and repair tools may be new to the Web and will not be familiar with the various markup languages that are used. Many others will not know about Web accessibility. Tools should be intuitive and easy to use and available at a minimal cost. Tools should not generate excessive warnings or false positive accessibility errors.

It is clear that only a limited set of the WAI Guideline's checkpoints may be objectively tested by a software tool. There will still be a dependence on the user's ability to use common sense to determine conformance to the guidelines. It is imperative that any tool have features that assist in reminding, without nagging; in helping, without demeaning; in suggesting, without demanding. We hope that the techniques in this document, implemented in software programs, will gently guide authors along the path to more accessible documents.

Structure Of This Document

This document is based on The WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines. It examines each checkpoint in the guidelines and provides one or more techniques for the implementation of that checkpoint. Each implementation technique contains the following items:

Title:
The WAI guidelines checkpoint.
Definition:
A technique to check for checkpoint compliance.
Discussion Status:
Awaiting discussion, under discussion, discussion complete.
Evaluation:
The HTML element(s) that must be examined, and algorithms and heuristics used to examine them.
Example of a message to be displayed:
Messages displayed to the author if a problem is found.
Repair Techniques:
Methods for repairing the HTML code.
Test Files:
Used to test evaluation tools to see if they find the accessibility problem.
Discussion Files:
Discussion and comments on the technique.

Note. This document specifies only the function of evaluation and repair tools. Nothing in this document should be taken to imply a particular user interface.


Guideline 1. Provide equivalent alternatives to auditory and visual content.

Checkpoint 1.1 - Provide a text equivalent for every non-text element.

Technique 1.1.1 [priority 1] Check IMG elements for valid "alt" attribute

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:

Valid ALT text:

Note: We're awaiting word from GL on null and blank alt text. See discussion at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-er-ig/1999Jun/0050.html especially part about null or blank alt text for links.

Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Techniques:

Other checks:

Test Files and Discussion Files:

Technique 1.1.2 [priority 1] Verify that valid IMG element descriptions ("longdesc" attribute or d-link) are provided where necessary

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:

Images that do not require a LONGDESC or descriptive link:

Valid LONGDESC URI:

Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Technique 1.1.3 [priority 1] Check INPUT elements of type="image" for valid "alt" attribute

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:

Valid ALT text:

Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Technique 1.1.4 [priority 1] Check APPLET elements for valid "alt" attribute

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:

Valid ALT attribute text:

Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Technique 1.1.5 [priority 1] Verify that valid APPLET element descriptions are provided where necessary

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:

Valid text element:

Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Link to test files for this technique.

Technique 1.1.6 [priority 1] Check OBJECT elements of type="<image MIME types>" for valid text equivalents and descriptions (where necessary)

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:

Valid alternative representation element:

Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Link to test files for this technique.

Technique 1.1.7 [priority 1] Verify that text equivalents are provided for audio files where necessary

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Link to test files for this technique.

Technique 1.1.8 [priority 1] Check FRAME elements for valid "longdesc" attribute

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:

Valid "longdesc" file name:

Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Technique 1.1.9 [priority 1] Check AREA elements for valid "alt" attribute

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:

Valid ALT attribute:

Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:

Prompt user for ALT text for the area element.

Test Files and Discussion Files:

Technique 1.1.10 [priority 1] Check SCRIPT elements for valid equivalents where necessary

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:

Valid text element:

Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Technique 1.1.11 [priority 1] Check A elements for valid text content

No information at this time.

Technique 1.1.12 [priority 1] Verify that valid text equivalents are provided for PRE and XMP elements used to create ASCII art.

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:

All BODY elements will generate a user notification.

Note: We are still working on methods of determining if a document contains ASCII art. If we can't find a suitable algorithm that finds ASCII art then all pages will get a notification.

ASCII Art Discussion Page

Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Checkpoint 1.2 - Provide redundant text links for each active region of a server-side image map.

Technique 1.2.1 [priority 1] Verify that a server-side image map has associated text links.

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:

Valid "ismap" attribute:

Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Checkpoint 1.3 - Until user agents can automatically read aloud the text equivalent of a visual track, provide an auditory description of the important information of the visual track of a multimedia presentation.

Technique 1.3.A [priority 1] User Notification for audio description.

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Checkpoint 1.4 - For any time-based multimedia presentation (e.g., a movie or animation), synchronize equivalent alternatives (e.g., captions or auditory descriptions of the visual track) with the presentation.

Technique 1.4.A [priority 1] User Notification for synchronized alternatives.

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Technique 1.4.B [priority 1] Check SMIL files for synchronized media

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Checkpoint 1.5 - Until user agents render text equivalents for client-side image map links, provide redundant text links for each active region of a client-side image map

Technique 1.5.A [priority 3] Prompt user for text links if USEMAP used.

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:

Valid USEMAP attribute:

Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Guideline 2. Don't rely on color alone.

Checkpoint 2.1 - Ensure that all information conveyed with color is also available without color, for example from context or markup.

Technique 2.1.1 [priority 1] User notification for color use

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:

Display a user notification if the document contains any of the following elements:

Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Checkpoint 2.2 - Ensure that foreground and background color combinations provide sufficient contrast when viewed by someone having color deficits or when viewed on a black and white screen.

Technique 2.2.1 [priority 3] Test the color attributes of the following elements for visibility:

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:

Test the following elements and attributes for color visibility

Color visibility can be determined according to the following algorithm:

(This is a suggested algorithm that is still open to change.)

Two colors provide good color visibility if the brightness difference and the color difference between the two colors are greater than a set range.

Color brightness is determined by the following formula:
((Red value X 299) + (Green value X 587) + (Blue value X 114)) / 1000
Note: This algorithm is taken from a formula for converting RGB values to YIQ values. This brightness value gives a perceived brightness for a color.

Color difference is determined by the following formula:
(maximum (Red value 1, Red value 2) - minimum (Red value 1, Red value 2)) + (maximum (Green value 1, Green value 2) - minimum (Green value 1, Green value 2)) + (maximum (Blue value 1, Blue value 2) - minimum (Blue value 1, Blue value 2))

The rage for color brightness difference is 125. The range for color difference is 500.

Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Guideline 3. Use markup and style sheets and do so properly

Checkpoint 3.1 - When an appropriate markup language exists, use markup rather than images to convey information

Technique 3.1.1 [priority 2] Verify that elements do not need to be converted to an appropriate markup language

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:

Elements that will trigger this evaluation:

Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:

Checkpoint 3.2 - Create documents that validate to published formal grammars

Technique 3.2.1 [priority 2] Check document for public text identifier

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Checkpoint 3.3 - Use style sheets to control layout and presentation

Technique 3.3.A [priority 2] Check document for use of style sheets.

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:

Checkpoint 3.4 - Use relative rather than absolute units in markup language attribute values and style sheet property values

Technique 3.4.A [priority 2] Check document for relative or absolute units.

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Checkpoint 3.5 - Use header elements to convey document structure and use them according to specification

Technique 3.5.A [priority 2] Check document for header nesting

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Technique 3.5.B [priority 2] Check document for missing header markup

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Technique 3.5.C [priority 2] User notification of improper header use

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:

Checkpoint 3.6 - Mark up lists and list items properly

Technique 3.6.A [priority 2] Check that list elements are within a list container and well nested.

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Checkpoint 3.7 - Mark up quotations. Do not use quotation markup for formatting effects such as indentation

Technique 3.7.A [priority 2] Check document for missing quote markup

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Technique 3.7.B [priority 2] Check Q and BLOCKQUOTE to ensure they are used properly

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Technique 3.7.C [priority 2] User notification of improper BLOCKQUOTE or Q use

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:

BLOCKQUOTE or Q elements should be used to define quotes and should not be used for formatting text.

Repair Technique:

Guideline 4. Clarify natural language usage

Checkpoint 4.1 - Clearly identify changes in the natural language of a document's text and any text equivalents (e.g., captions)

Technique 4.1.A [priority 1] User notification of changes in natural language of document.

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Checkpoint 4.2 - Specify the expansion of each abbreviation or acronym in a document where it first occurs

Technique 4.2.A [priority 3] User notification of abbreviation and acronym expansion.

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Checkpoint 4.3 - Identify the primary natural language of a document

Technique 4.3.1 [priority 3] Verify the primary language of the document

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:

Allowed LANG attributes:

Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Guideline 5. Create tables that transform gracefully

Checkpoint 5.1 - For data tables, identify row and column headers

Technique 5.1.1 Determine the purpose of the table

Discussion Status:

The purpose of the table must be determined before performing an accessibility evaluation. To help the page author in making this assessment, the following language may be used:

Example of a message to be displayed:

Technique 5.1.2 [priority 1] Check the table for row and column headers

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Checkpoint 5.2 - For data tables that have two or more logical levels of row or column headers, use markup to associate data cells and header cells

Technique 5.2.A - [Priority 1] Check tables for multiple levels of logical row/column headers

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:

Checkpoint 5.3 - Do not use tables for layout unless the table makes sense when linearized

Technique 5.3.A [priority 2] User notification of using tables for layout

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Checkpoint 5.4 - If a table is used for layout, do not use any structural markup for the purpose of visual formatting

Technique 5.4.A [priority 2] Check layout tables for structural markup

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Checkpoint 5.5 - Provide summaries for tables

Technique 5.5.A [priority 3] Check table for valid SUMMARY

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:

Valid SUMMARY attributes:

Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Checkpoint 5.6 - Provide abbreviations for header labels

Technique 5.6.A [priority 3] Check table for header abbreviations

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:

Valid ABBR attributes:

Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Guideline 6. Ensure that pages featuring new technologies transform gracefully

Checkpoint 6.1 - Organize documents so they may be read without style sheets

Technique 6.1.A [priority 1] Verify that the document is readable when style sheets are not applied.

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:

Triggers:

Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Checkpoint 6.2 - Ensure that equivalents for dynamic content are updated when the dynamic content changes

Technique 6.2.A [priority 1] Check the source of FRAME and IFRAME elements for valid markup files.

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Technique 6.2.B [priority 1] Verify that equivalents of dynamic content are updated and available as often as the dynamic content.

@@Yikes, is that really what we want to say here? This gets into issues related to Guideline 7. I guess we could tie them together in some way...?

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:

Triggers

Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Checkpoint 6.3 - Ensure that pages are usable when scripts, applets, or other programmatic objects are turned off or not supported

Technique 6.3.A [priority 1] Verify that the page is usable when programatic objects are disabled.

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:

Triggered by:

Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Checkpoint 6.4 - For scripts and applets, ensure that event handlers are input device-independent

Technique 6.4.A [priority 2] User notification of device independent event handlers.

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Checkpoint 6.5 - Ensure that dynamic content is accessible or provide an alternative presentation or page

Technique 6.5.A [priority 2] Check if there is a NOFRAMES section after a FRAMES section.

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Technique 6.6.A [priority 2] Verify that programmatic objects are directly accessible.

Discussion Status:

Evaluation:

Triggered by:

Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Guideline 7. Ensure user control of time-sensitive content changes

Checkpoint 7.1 - Until user agents allow users to control flickering, avoid causing the screen to flicker

Technique 7.1.A [priority 1] Verify that the page does not cause flicker.

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:

Triggered by:

Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Checkpoint 7.2 - Until user agents allow users to control blinking, avoid causing content to blink

Technique 7.2.A [priority 1] Remove any BLINK elements from document

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Checkpoint 7.3 - Until user agents allow users to freeze moving content, avoid movement in pages

Technique 7.3.A [priority 1] Repair MARQUEE elements

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Technique 7.3.B [priority 1] Verify that programmatic objects create moving content

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:

Triggered by:

Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Checkpoint 7.4 - Until user agents provide the ability to stop the refresh, do not create periodically auto-refreshing pages

Technique 7.4.A [priority 2] Remove auto-refresh attributes from META elements

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Checkpoint 7.5 - Until user agents provide the ability to stop auto-redirect, do not use markup to redirect pages automatically

Technique 7.5.A [priority 2] Check auto-redirect attributes on META elements

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Guideline 8. Ensure direct accessibility of embedded user interfaces

Checkpoint 8.1 - Make programmatic elements such as scripts and applets directly accessible or compatible with assistive technologies

Technique 8.1.A [priority 1 if functionality is important and not presented elsewhere, otherwise Priority 2] User notification if programmatic elements used

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:

Guideline 9. Design for device-independence

Checkpoint 9.1 - Provide client-side image maps instead of server-side image maps except where the regions cannot be defined with an available geometric shape

Technique 9.1.A [priority 1] Check for use of server-side image maps

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Checkpoint 9.2 - Ensure that any element that has its own interface can be operated in a device-independent manner

(Image map text links - checked in techniques 1.2.A and 1.5.A.

@@Programmatic objects check in 6.5 and 8.1.A Need clarification.


Checkpoint 9.3 - For scripts, specify logical event handlers rather than device-dependent event handlers

Technique 9.3.A [priority 2] Check scripts for logical event handlers

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:

The following event handlers will trigger this technique:

Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Checkpoint 9.4 - Create a logical tab order through links, form controls, and objects

Technique 9.4.1 [priority 3] Check for "tabindex" attribute

Discussion Status:

Evaluation:

Check the following elements for a "tabindex" attribute:

Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Checkpoint 9.5 - Provide keyboard shortcuts to important links, form controls, and groups of form controls

Technique 9.5.1 [priority 3] Check for "accesskey" attribute

Discussion Status:

Evaluation:

Check the following elements for an "accesskey" attribute:

Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Guideline 10. Use interim solutions

Checkpoint 10.1 - Until user agents allow users to turn off spawned windows, do not cause pop-ups or other windows to appear and do not change the current window without informing the user

Technique 10.1.1 [priority 1] Check A and AREA elements for valid "target" attributes

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Technique 10.1.2 [priority 1] Verify that scripts do not spawn new windows.

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Checkpoint 10.2 - Until user agents support explicit associations between labels and form controls, for all form controls with implicitly associated labels, ensure that the label is properly positioned

Technique 10.2.1 [priority 2] Verify that label controls are properly positioned.

Refer also to checkpoint 12.4

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:

Triggered by the following elements:

Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Checkpoint 10.3 - Until user agents (including assistive technologies) render side-by-side text correctly, provide a linear text alternative (on the current page or some other) for all tables that lay out text in parallel, word-wrapped columns

Technique 10.3.1 [priority 3] Generate a linear text alternative for all TABLEs.

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Checkpoint 10.4 - Until user agents handle empty controls correctly, include default, place-holding characters in edit boxes and text areas

Technique 10.4.1 [priority 3] Check for valid default values of INPUT, TEXTAREA, and SELECT elements.

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:


Checkpoint 10.5 - Until user agents (including assistive technologies) render adjacent links distinctly, include non-link, printable characters (surrounded by spaces) between adjacent links

Technique 10.5.1 [priority 3] Check for non-whitespace characters between consecutive A elements.

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Guideline 11. Use W3C technologies and guidelines

Checkpoint 11.1 - Use W3C technologies when they are available and appropriate for a task and use the latest versions when supported

Technique 11.1.1 [priority 2] Verify that W3C technologies are used.

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Checkpoint 11.2 - Avoid deprecated features of W3C technologies

Technique 11.2.1 [priority 2] Check for deprecated features of W3C technologies

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:

Checkpoint 11.3 - Provide information so that users may receive documents according to their preferences

Technique 11.3.1 [priority 3] Check that documents are served per user preferences.

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:

Checkpoint 11.4 - If, after best efforts, you cannot create an accessible page, provide a link to an alternative page that uses W3C technologies, is accessible, has equivalent information (or functionality), and is updated as often as the inaccessible (original) page

Technique 11.4.1 [priority 1] Verify that the page has passed all checkpoints of the desired conformance level.

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:

Guideline 12. Provide context and orientation information

Checkpoint 12.1 - Title each frame to facilitate frame identification and navigation

Technique 12.1.A [priority 1] Check frames for title

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:

Valid title text for frame:

Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Checkpoint 12.2 - Describe the purpose of frames and how frames relate to each other if it is not obvious by frame titles alone

(Suggest that if the frame title does not describe the frame that a LONGDESC is needed?)


Checkpoint 12.3 - Divide large blocks of information into more manageable groups where natural and appropriate

(Any suggestions??)


Checkpoint 12.4 - Associate labels explicitly with their controls

Technique 12.4.1 [priority 2] Check LABEL elements for valid "for" attribute values.

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:
Test Files and Discussion Files:

Guideline 13. Provide clear navigation mechanisms

Checkpoint 13.1 - Clearly identify the target of each link

Technique 13.1.1 [priority 2] Verify that the target of each link is clearly identified.

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:

Checkpoint 13.2 - Provide metadata to add semantic information to pages and sites

Checkpoint 13.2.1 [priority 2] Check for use of RDF, META, ADDRESS, TITLE and LINK elements.

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:

Checkpoint 13.3 - Provide information about the general layout of a site

(Can't be machine checked. User notification?)


Checkpoint 13.4 - Use navigation mechanisms in a consistent manner

(Can't be machine checked. User notification?)


Checkpoint 13.5 - Provide navigation bars to highlight and give access to the navigation mechanism

(Can't be machine checked. User notification?)


Checkpoint 13.6 - Group related links, identify the group (for user agents), and, until user agents do so, provide a way to bypass the group

Technique 13.6.1 [Priority 3] Verify if links should be grouped.

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:

Checkpoint 13.7 - If search functions are provided, enable different types of searches for different skill levels and preferences

Technique 13.7.1 [priority 3] Verify that search functions enable a variety of skill levels and preferences.

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:

Checkpoint 13.8 - Place distinguishing information at the beginning of headings, paragraphs, lists, etc

(Can't be machine checked. User notification?)


Checkpoint 13.9 - Provide information about document collections

Technique 13.9.1 [priority 3] Verify that information about document collections is provided.

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:

Checkpoint 13.10 - Provide a means to skip over multi-line ASCII art

(Can't be machine checked - this sort of ASCII art is larger than just emoticons. User notification?)


Guideline 14. Ensure that documents are clear and simple

Checkpoint 14.1 - Use the clearest and simplest language appropriate for a site's content

(Check document using fog index? User notification?)


Checkpoint 14.2 - Supplement text with graphic or auditory presentations where they will facilitate comprehension of the page

(Can't be machine checked. User notification?)


Checkpoint 14.3 - Create a style of presentation that is consistent across pages

Technique 14.3.1 [priority 3] Verify that a consistent style of presentation is used across pages.

Discussion Status:
Evaluation:
Example of a message to be displayed:
Repair Technique:

Document Rating

After evaluating a document, an evaluation and/or repair tool should provide the user with a document rating. The rating is based on conformance to the WAI Page Authoring Guidelines and will be:

Some checkpoints can not be checked by a software program and will require user evaluation. The user must be informed of the items that they must check.


Appendixes

Appendix A - Placeholder ALT text


Appendix B - Image File Suffixes


Appendix C - Placeholder OBJECT ALT text


Appendix D - Sound File Suffixes


Appendix E - Placeholder NOSCRIPT text


Appendix F - Placeholder TABLE SUMMARY text


Appendix G - Placeholder table header ABBR text


Appendix H - Placeholder FRAME TITLE text


Appendix I - Applet Executable Suffix


Appendix J - Bullet Identification

An image will be identified as a bullet if it has the following characteristics:

Identifying Bullets page


Appendix K - Horizontal Rule Identification

An image will be identified as a horizontal rule if it has the following characteristics:

Identifying HRs page


Appendix L - Links To Associated Sites