May 9, 2003 Proposed Reorganization

Minimum Success Criteria for this Checkpoint

1. non-text content that can be expressed in words has a text-equivalent explicitly associated with it.
2. non-text content that can not be expressed in words has a descriptive label provided as its text-equivalent.
   • The text equivalent should fulfill the same function as the author intended for the non-text content (i.e. it presents all of the intended information and/or achieves the same function of the non-text content).

Best Practice

1. the text-equivalent has been reviewed and is believed to fulfill the same function as the author intended for the non-text content (i.e. it presents all of the intended information and/or achieves the same function of the non-text content)

Minimum Success Criteria for this Checkpoint

1. an audio description is provided of all significant visual information in scenes, actions and events that cannot be perceived from the sound track alone.
   • Note: When adding audio description to existing materials, the amount of information conveyed through audio description is constrained by the amount of space available in the existing audio track. It may also be impossible or inappropriate to freeze the audio/visual program to insert additional audio description.
2. all significant dialogue and sounds are captioned
   exception: if the Web content is real-time and audio-only and not time-sensitive and not interactive a transcript or other non-audio equivalent is sufficient.
3. descriptions and captions are synchronized with the events they represent.
4. if the Web content is real-time video with audio, real-time captions are provided unless the content:
   • is a music program that is primarily non-vocal
5. If the Web content is real-time non-interactive video (e.g., a Webcam of ambient conditions), either provide an equivalent that conforms to checkpoint 1.1 (e.g., an ongoing update of weather conditions) or link to an equivalent that conforms to checkpoint 1.1 (e.g., a link to a weather Web site).
6. if a pure audio or pure video presentation requires a user to respond interactively at specific times in the presentation, then a time-synchronized equivalent (audio, visual or text) presentation is provided.

exception: if content is rebroadcast from another medium or resource that complies to broadcast requirements for accessibility (independent of these guidelines), the rebroadcast satisfies the checkpoint if it complies with the other guidelines.

Best Practice

1. the audio description has been reviewed and is believed to include all significant visual information in scenes, actions and events (that can't be perceived from the sound track) to the extent possible given the constraints posed by the existing audio track (and constraints on freezing the audio/visual program to insert additional auditory description).

Listed below are items from group two which relate to this checkpoint:

1. a text document that merges all audio descriptions and captions into a collated script (that provides dialog, important sounds and important visual information in a single text document) is provided.
2. captions and audio descriptions are provided for all live broadcasts which provide the same information.
3. The presentation does not require the user to read captions and the visual presentation simultaneously in order to understand the content.

Minimum Success Criteria for this Checkpoint  

1. the following can be derived programmatically (i.e. through assistive technology compatible markup or data model) from the content without interpreting presentation.
   1. any hierarchical elements and relationships, such as headings, paragraphs and lists
   2. any non-hierarchical relationships between elements such as cross-references and linkages, associations between labels and controls, associations between cells and their headers, etc.
   3. any emphasis

[An example for color coding and an example of  forms and labels should be added to the informative information here.]

Minimum Success Criteria for this Checkpoint 

1. text in the content is provided in Unicode or sufficient information is provided so that it will be automatically mapped back to Unicode.

Best Practice

1. abbreviations and acronyms are clearly identified where they occur. (See also checkpoint 4.3.)
2. symbols such as diacritic marks that are found in standard usage of the natural language of the content, and necessary for unambiguous interpretation of words, are present or another standard mechanism for disambiguation is provided.

Minimum Success Criteria for this Checkpoint

1. the structural elements present have a different visual appearance or auditory characteristic than the other structural elements.

Best Practice

1. the structural emphases are chosen to be distinct for different major display types (e.g. black and white, small display, mono audio playback).
2. content is constructed such that users can control the presentation of the structural elements.
3. alternate presentation formats are available to vary the emphasis of the structure.

Minimum Success Criteria for this Checkpoint

1. text content that is presented over a background image or pattern is implemented using mechanisms that allow the user to display the text without the background image or pattern.

Best Practice

1. when text content is presented over a background image or pattern, the text is easily readable when the page is viewed in 256 grayscale.
2. text content is not presented over a background image or pattern OR the text is easily readable when the page is viewed in black and white (no grayscale).
3. audio content does not contain background sounds OR the background sounds are at least 20 db lower than the foreground audio content.
4. text content is not presented over a background image or color OR the colors used for the text and background or background image pass the following test:
   • no tests/algorithms are available at this time

   Reviewer's Note: The working group is seeking an algorithm that measures contrast in a way that is accurate and testable enough that we could include it in the guidelines. One algorithm, which comes from the Techniques For Accessibility Evaluation And Repair Tools document, is currently under consideration for inclusion in the techniques, but the group has not yet found something that is specific enough to be included at the guidelines level.

Minimum Success Criteria for this Checkpoint  

1. all of the functionality of the content where the functionality or its outcome can be expressed concisely in words is operable at a minimum through a keyboard or keyboard interface.
   • Note: refer to checkpoint 5.3 for information regarding user agent support.

Best Practice      

1. wherever a choice between event handlers is available and supported, the more abstract event is used.

[Informative information. Add a definition of operable as meaning not using mouse keys or an infinite tabbing on a long doc or other unreasonably inefficient keyboard access. Add another definition that says something to the effect that access is efficient.  That is, mouse keys can’t be used as a way to provide access via keyboard and if a document has a very large number of links, some mechanism other than tabbing through them one at a time needs to be provided]

Minimum Success Criteria for this Checkpoint

1. at least one of the following is true for each time limit:
   1. the user is allowed to deactivate the time limits,
   2. or the user is allowed to adjust the time limit over a wide range which is at least 10 times the average user's preference,
   3. or the user is warned before time expires and given at least 10 seconds to extend the time limit,
   4. or the time limit is due to a real-time event (e.g. auction) and no alternative to the time limit is possible,
   5. or the time limit is part of a competitive activity where timing is an essential part of the activity (e.g. competitive gaming or time based testing).

Related group two items   --  It is recommended , but not required that, wherever possible, activities be designed so that time limits are not an essential part of the activity.  (e.g. alternate forms of competition, testing, etc. that are not time based.)

Minimum Success Criteria for this Checkpoint

1. At least one of the following is true:
   1. content was not designed to flicker (or flash) in the range of 3 to 49 Hz.
   2. Reviewer's Note: We would like to include a criteria here which would state that a test that was conducted and the pages passed. No test or tool exists yet though. We're looking into how such a test and/or tool might be designed.
   3. if flicker is unavoidable, the user is warned of the flicker before they go to the page, and as close a version of the content as is possible without flicker is provided.

Best Practice

1. animation or other content does not visibly or purposely flicker between 3 and 49 Hz.
2. content that might create a problem has been tested [using XYZ tool]; only pages with unavoidable flicker remain and appropriate warnings along with a close alternative presentation have been provided for these pages.
3. (tougher test - that would make pages pass with even slower equip. Equip might be old or just slow for other reasons)

Note:  Because this checkpoint impacts on and limits types of presentation, it is not included in group one.  However, it is very strongly recommended that anyone creating accessibility guidelines or regulations consider this checkpoint for their required set.

Minimum Success Criteria for this Checkpoint   In documents greater than 50,000 words or sites larger than 50 perceived pages, the following are provided.

1. Additional hierarchical structure mark up
2. Table of contents (or site map)
3. Alternate display orders (or alternate site navigation mechanisms)
4. (Items currently listed under Success Criteria for 3.1 and 3.2 should be considered for here, but many/most of them should actually be moved to the techniques document???)

Note:  One of the reasons for combining these two is that they both get at the same issue.  Also, on many sites, it is becoming increasingly difficult to tell when you are navigating within a site and when you are navigating within a document.  This will only increase over time.  Since the title of this thing is web content, it is recommended that these two items be combined so that we are talking about web content versus separating content from sites.

Minimum Success Criteria for this Checkpoint

1. if an error is detected, feedback is provided to the user identifying the error.

Best Practice

1. the content has been reviewed and is believed to have incorporated error prevention and recovery methods that are considered to be effective and appropriate
2. where possible, the user is allowed to select from a list of options as well as to generate input text directly
3. errors are identified specifically and suggestions for correction are provided where possible
4. checks for misspelled words are applied and correct spellings are suggested when text entry is required.
5. where consequences are significant and time-response is not important, one of the following is true
   1. actions are reversible where possible
   2. where not reversible, actions are checked for errors in advance.
   3. where not reversible, and not checkable, a confirmation is asked before acceptance

Minimum Success Criteria for this Checkpoint

1. passages or fragments of text occurring within the content that are written in a language other than the primary natural language of the content as a whole, are identified, including specification of the language of the passage or fragment.
2. the primary natural language of the content is identified at the page level.

Changes in the language within a document are marked.

Best Practice   If the document as a whole is written in one language, a tool can generally determine the language.  If there is a document on a site which is mostly all in one language, then the single document in one language could be indicated.

Minimum Success Criteria for this Checkpoint 

1. acronyms and abbreviations are defined the first time they appear.

Best Practice  

1. @@ "cascading dictionaries"
2. the content has been reviewed, taking into account the additional ideas listed below, and it is believed that complex, abbreviated or unfamiliar information has been annotated appropriately
   1. provide a definition or link (with the first occurrence) of phrases, words, acronyms, and abbreviations specific to a particular community.
   2. provide a summary for relationships that may not be obvious from analyzing the structure of a table but that may be apparent in a visual rendering of the table.
   3. if contracted forms of words are used such that they are ambiguous, provide semantic markup to make words unique and interpretable.

Minimum Success Criteria for this Checkpoint

1. familiarity of terms and language structure
2. reasonableness of length and complexity of sentences
3. coherence of paragraphs (and sensibility in length)
4. clarity of headings and linked text when read out of context
5. accuracy and uniqueness of page titles
6. care in the use of all-capital letters where normal sentence case might increase comprehension
7. authors have included non-text content to supplement text for key pages or sections of the site where they felt it was appropriate.

Best Practice

1. use of sentence structures that increase understanding
   • such as active voice in languages where this form helps convey information
2. length of noun phrases
   • strings of no more than three or four nouns are easiest to understand
3. clarity of reference with pronouns and anaphoric expressions (these refer back to something already said in the text)
   • example of potential ambiguity: "Scientists study monkeys. They eat bananas."
4. correct use of conjunction forms and adverbs to make explicit the relationship between phrases or parts of the text
   • such as "and," "but," "furthermore," "not only"
5. complexity of verb tenses
   • do the tenses used in a document seem overly complicated?
6. intelligibility of verb phrases
7. familiarity of idioms or slang
8. logic in the order and flow of information
9. consequences of ambiguity or abstraction
10. improved readability of vertical lists might offer in place of long paragraphs of information
11. use of summaries to aid understanding
12. thoroughness in the explanation of instructions or required actions
13. consistency in the use of names and labels
14. clarity where the document:
    • addresses users
    • explains choices and options
    • labels options to get more information
    • instructs users how to modify selections in critical functions (such as how to delete an item from a shopping cart)
15. application of:
    • proper markup to highlight key information
    • goal-action structure for menu prompts
    • default settings (and the ease in re-establishing them)
    • two-step "select and confirm" processes to reduce accidental selections for critical functions
    • calculation assistance to reduce the need to calculate
16. at least one of the following is true:
    • new material is tested with potential users for ease of accessibility
    • a controlled language is used
    • support is given for conversion into symbolic languages
17. the content has been reviewed and it is believed that text has been supplemented with non-text content to the extent deemed appropriate by the author
18. non-text content has been added to the site for key pages or sections specifically to make the site more understandable by users who cannot understand the text only version of the site.

Minimum Success Criteria for this Checkpoint 

1. key orientation and navigational elements are generally found in one or two locations or their locations are otherwise predictable.
2. where inconsistent or unpredictable responses are essential to the function of the content (e.g. mystery games, adventure games, tests, etc.) the user is warned in advance of encountering them.
3. wherever there are extreme changes in context, one of the following is true:
   1. an easy to find setting, that persists for the site visit, is provided for the user to deactivate processes or features that cause extreme changes in context or
   2. 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

Best Practice

1. the content has been reviewed, taking into account the additional ideas listed below, and it has been concluded that key orientation and navigational elements are generally found in one or two locations, or their locations are otherwise predictable
2. the content has been reviewed, and it has been found that where inconsistent or unpredictable responses are essential to its function (e.g. mystery games, adventure games, tests, etc.), the user is warned in advance of encountering them

Minimum Success Criteria for this Checkpoint

1. for markup, except where the site has documented that a specification was violated for backward compatibility, the markup has passed validity tests of the language (whether it be conforming to a schema, Document Type Definition (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.
   Reviewer's Note:The following two success criteria seem to overlap with checkpoint 5.4. There is an open question about whether they should be deleted since Checkpoint 5.4 covers programmatic interfaces.
2. for Application Programming Interfaces (API's), programming standards for the language are followed.
3. accessibility features and API's are used when available.

Best Practice

1. for markup, the markup has passed validity tests of the language (whether it be conforming to a schema, Document Type Definition (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.

Minimum Success Criteria for this Checkpoint

1. a list of technologies and features, support for which is required in order for the content to be operable, has been determined and is documented in metadata and / or a policy statement associated with the content.
   • Note: When determining your list of technological requirements, consider that assistive hardware and software is often slow to adapt to technological advances, and the availability of assistive technology varies across natural languages. Verify that assistive technology compatible with the technologies you choose is available in the natural language(s) of your content.
2. the content is still usable when features not on the required list (for example, scripting and stylesheets) are turned off or not supported.

Best Practice

1. Technologies and features on the required list are available in at least two independently-developed implementations.
2. of at least two such implementations, it is true that the technologies and features on the required list have been supported by at least one prior version of the software.

[In the definitions add a definition of “widely available” to include something which is low cost and available in many?/most? countries/languages.]

Minimum Success Criteria for this Checkpoint

1. the technology or combination of technologies chosen:
   1. support device independence
   2. include accessibility features
   3. have publicly documented interfaces for interoperability
   4. make use of operating system accessibility features (either directly or via the user agent) supported by assistive technologies in the natural language(s) of the content
   5. are implemented in user agents and/or proxies in the natural language(s) of the content
2. any applications with custom user interfaces conform to at least Level A of the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. If the application cannot be made accessible, an alternative, accessible solution is provided.

[Note:  Many of the items listed in 5.3 are ambiguous and/or not actually required for accessibility.  We should carefully examine this one.  For example:

• What does device independence mean besides the items that are already required in these guidelines?
• What does “include accessibility features” mean besides what is included in this set of guidelines?
• Having interfaces for interoperability publicly documented simply means that they have been posted on a website, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it follows any standards or that anybody supports it and it doesn’t necessarily make something accessible to anyone.
• Unless these operating system features are all listed specifically in this standard, they should not be at a “required” level in the standard.

Cynthia has re-written this section and we should look at her recommendations carefully.  These notes are based off our current post it draft.

Best Practice

1. 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.
   Reviewer's Note: 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?
2. device-independent access to functionality is provided
3. accessibility conventions of the markup or programming language (API's or specific markup) are used