History of Changes to WCAG 2.0 Working Drafts
This document tracks the changes made to intermediate drafts for WCAG WG
review as well as those published on the W3C Technical Reports page to
encourage wider review.
General
- Added Mapping appendix
- Updated Acknowledgements section
- Incorporated misc. editorial, grammar and typographical errors.
Glossary
- Revised definition of "information that is conveyed by color" to read, "information presented in a manner that depends on the ability to perceive color" (20 April 2006 Teleconference)
The following changes are based on resolutions from the 06 April 2006 Teleconference.
Principle 1
- Revised SC 1.1.2 to read, "For prerecorded multimedia, a full multimedia text alternative including any interaction is provided." and moved it to guideline 1.2.
- Revised 1.2.2 to read, "1.2.2 Audio descriptions of video or a full multimedia text alternative including any interaction, are provided for prerecorded multimedia."
Glossary
- Updated the term, "full corrected text screenplay including any interaction" to "full multimedia text alternative including any interaction." (no change to definition itself)
Principle 4
- Updated text of guideline 4.1 to read, "Support compatibility with current and future user agents (including assistive technologies)" (30 March 2006 minutes)
Glossary
- Removed "publicly documented" from definitions of "programmatically set" and "programmatically determined" (30 March 2006 minutes)
- Added definition for "full corrected text screenplay including any interaction" that reads, "document including correctly sequenced descriptions of all visual settings, actions, and non-speech sounds combined with descriptive transcripts of all dialogue and a means of achieving any outcomes that are achieved using interaction during the multimedia. Note: A screenplay used to create the multimedia content would meet this definition only if it was corrected to accurately represent the final multimedia after editing etc." (30 March 2006 minutes)
General
Principle 1
Principle 2
- Revised 2.2.2 to read, " 2.2.2 Content does not blink for more than 3 seconds, or a method is available to stop all blinking content in the Web unit or authored component." (Issue 1643) (23 March 2006 minutes)
- Revised SC 2.2.6 to read, "When an authenticated session expires, the user can continue the activity without loss of data after re-authenticating." (Issue 1828) (23 March 2006 minutes)
- Added a new success criterion to guideline 2.3 at level 3 that reads, "Web units do not contain any compontents that flash more than three times in any one second period." (23 March 2006 minutes)
Principle 3
Glossary
General
Principle 1
-
Revised SC 1.1.1 to read as follows (16 March 2006 minutes):
1.1.1 For all non-text content, one of the following is true:
- If non-text content presents information or responds to user input, text alternatives serve the same purpose and present the same information as the non-text content. If text alternatives cannot serve the same purpose then the text alternative at least identifies the purpose of the non-text content;
- If non-text content is multimedia, live audio-only or live video-only content, a test or exercise that must use a particular sense, or if the non-text content is primarily intended to create a specific sensory experience, text alternatives at least identify the non-text content with a descriptive text label. (For multimedia -see also, Guideline 1.2)
- If the purpose of non-text content is to confirm that content is being operated by a person rather than a computer, different forms are provided to accommodate multiple disabilities.
- If non-text content is pure decoration, or used only for visual formatting or if it is not presented to users, it is implemented such that it can be ignored by assistive technology.
- Revised SC 1.1.6 to read, "For prerecorded multimedia content, a combined document containing captions intermixed with the audio description transcripts is available." (02 March 2006 minutes)
- Revised SC 1.3.1 to read, " Information and relationships conveyed through presentation can be programmatically determined, and notification of changes to these is available to user agents, including assistive technology." (16 March 2006 minutes)
- Revised 1.3.5 to read, "When the sequence of the content affects its meaning, that sequence can be programmatically determined." (09 March 2006 minutes)
Principle 2
- Revised SC 2.4.5 to read, "The unique function of each link can be determined."(09 March 2006 minutes)
- Added SC 2.4.9, "The unique function of each link can be programmatically determined from the link." (09 March 2006 minutes)
- Revised 2.4.5 to read, "Each link is programmatically associated with text from which its purpose can be determined." (16 March 2006 minutes)
- Added 2.4.9 to read, "The purpose of each link can be programmatically determined from the link." (16 March 2006 minutes)
Principle 3
- Added SC 3.1.6, "A mechanism is available for identifying specific pronunciation of words where meaning cannot be determined without pronunciation." (09 March 2006 minutes)
Principle 4
- Revised SC 4.2.1 to read, "At least one version of the content meets all level 1 success criteria, but alternate version(s) that do not meet all level 1 success criteria may be available from the same URI." (16 March 2006 minutes)
- Added a new level 2 success criterion in guideline 4.2 that reads, "At least one version of the content meets all level 2 success criteria, but alternate version(s) that do not meet all level 2 success criteria may be available from the same URI." (Modified to match 4.2.1 language from 16 March 2006 minutes resolution)
- Revised 4.1.2 to read, "For all user interface components, the name and role can be programmatically determined, values that can be set by the user can be programmatically set, and notification of changes to these items is available to user agents, including assistive technology" (16 March 2006 minutes)
Glossary
- Removed definition of "link" (02 March 2006 minutes)
- Updated definition of "programmatic reference" to read, "user interface component, such as a link or control, that causes a change of context when activated" (02 March 2006 minutes)
- Removed, "The way a collection of authored units is organized in relation to a delivery unit" from the definition of "structure" (02 March 2006 minutes)
- Included a number of formatiing and editorial revisions. (02 March 2006 minutes)
- Updated definition of "analog, time-dependent input to read, "input whose result is different depending on the rate of the analog movement (such as when line width varies with pen speed or pressure.)" (02 March 2006 minutes)
- Updated definition of "authored unit," as "set of material created as a single body by an author" (02 March 2006 minutes)
- Updated definition of "baseline" to read, "set of technologies assumed to be supported by, and enabled in, user agents" (02 March 2006 minutes)
- Updated definition of "content" to read, "information to be communicated to the user by means of a user agent
Note: This includes the code and markup that define the structure, presentation, and interaction, as well as text, images, and sounds that convey information to the end-user." (16 March 2006 minutes)
- Updated definition of general flash and red flash threshold. (02 March 2006 minutes)
- Updated definition of "luminosity contrast ratio" (02 March 2006 minutes)
- Replaced "delivery unit" with "Web unit" throughout (09 March 2006 minutes)
- Added definition of "authored component" throughout (09 March 2006 minutes)
- Revised definition of "idiom" to read, "phrase whose meaning cannot be deduced from the meaning of the individual words and where you can't change the specific words without losing the meaning" (16 March 2006 minutes)
- Revised definition of "label" to read, "text, image or sound that is presented to a user to identify a component within Web content" (16 March 2006 minutes)
- Revised definition of "programmatically determined" to read, "determined by software from data provided in a publicly documented and user-agent-supported manner such that the user agents can extract and present this information to users in different modalities. Note: Publicly documented here means that documents are available in a free and accessible manner to all users, including availability on the Web." (16 March 2006 minutes)
- Revised definition of "real-time event" to read, "event occurring at the same time as the viewing that is not completely generated by the content and is not pre-recorded" and added exmaples (16 March 2006 minutes)
Revisions listed below are based on resolutions recorded in the following list.
Editorial
- Removed duplicate definition of "information conveyed by color"
- Fixed spacing and hyphenation issue with definition of keyboard interface.
- Split conformance into its own section.
- Marked sections as normative/informative (Issue 1757)
General
- Changed "sound effects" to "sounds"
- 19 January Resolutions
- 02 February Resolutions
Principle 1
- Updated SC 1.2.3 to read, "Captions are provided for live multimedia."
- Moved SC 1.3.3 to level 1, "Any information that is conveyed by color is visually evident when color is not available."
- Updated SC 1.4.2 to read, "A mechanism is available to turn off background audio that plays automatically, without requiring the user to turn off all audio."
- Revised SC 1.4.4 to read, "Audio content does not contain background sounds, background sounds can be turned off, or background sounds are at least 20 decibels lower than the foreground audio content, with the exception of occasional sound effects."
Principle 2
- Moved 2.4.3 to level 1, "A mechanism is available to bypass blocks of content that are repeated on multiple perceivable units." (16 Feb. 2006 telecon)
- Removed 2.3.1, "When content violates either the general flash threshold or the red flash threshold, users are warned in a way that allows them to avoid it." and moved 2.3.2, "Content does not violate the general flash threshold or the red flash threshold."
- Moved 2.4.2 to level 1, "2.4.2 A mechanism is available to bypass blocks of content that are repeated on multiple perceivable units."
Principle 3
- Removed "foreign" from 3.1.2, "The natural language of each passage or phrase in the content can be programmatically determined."
- Revised 3.2.2 and moved it to level 1, "Changing the setting of any form control or field does not automatically cause a change of context (beyond moving to the next field in tab order) unless the delivery unit contains instructions before the control that describe the behavior."
Principle 4
- Revised text of principle 4 to read, "Content should be robust enough to work with current and future user agents (including assistive technologies)"
- Revised SC 4.2.2 criteria to read, "If content can be entered using the keyboard, then the content can be exited using the keyboard."
Glossary
- added definitions of Assistive Technology and API per 16 Feb. 2006 resolution (Issue 386)
- removed definition of "feature" per 16 Feb. 2006 resolution (Issue 717)
- revised definition of "keyboard interface" per 16 Feb. 2006 resolution (Issue 1572)
- updated definition of real-time events (Issue 722)
- updated definition of "functionality" (Issues 1594 and 1595)
- added note to definition of sign language interpretation (partial resolution for Issue 1696)
- added note referencing Unicode (Issue 1849)
- removed 3rd bullet from definition of "information" (Issue 1858)
- updated definition of audio description
- added "images used as links" to note for definition of "non-text content that is functional"
- revised definition of "perceivable structures"
----------------------------
Revision : 1.343
Date : 2006/1/17 20:55:32
Description :
fixed common misspellings (per Sandy's draft style guide)
----------------------------
Revision : 1.342
Date : 2006/1/17 17:43:41
Description :
no message
----------------------------
Revision : 1.341
Date : 2006/1/17 17:8:47
Description :
changes for publication Jan 17 2006
----------------------------
Revision : 1.340
Date : 2006/1/17 0:44:26
Description :
updated per issue 1804 (added definition of analog, time-dependent input
----------------------------
Revision : 1.339
Date : 2006/1/17 0:43:51
Description :
updated per issue 1804 (added definition of analog, time-dependent input
----------------------------
Revision : 1.338
Date : 2006/1/17 0:40:35
Description :
added definition of "variations in presentation of text" per 12 Jan. call
----------------------------
Revision : 1.337
Date : 2006/1/17 0:37:34
Description :
updates to 1873
----------------------------
Revision : 1.336
Date : 2006/1/16 19:42:17
Description :
issue 1659 updates to SC text
----------------------------
Revision : 1.335
Date : 2006/1/16 19:37:10
Description :
updates per issue 1378 (removed "is designed to be operated")
----------------------------
Revision : 1.334
Date : 2006/1/16 18:34:1
Description :
issue 1770 updates to 2.4.7
----------------------------
Revision : 1.333
Date : 2006/1/16 18:25:15
Description :
issue 1769 - revised SC (added labels) and added a defintion of label.
Note this also addressed editorial action items to address use of label throughout.
----------------------------
Revision : 1.332
Date : 2006/1/16 18:4:1
Description :
issue 1654 - removed "remote" from "remote data storage systems"
----------------------------
Revision : 1.331
Date : 2006/1/16 17:58:36
Description :
added definition of 'programmatic reference' - Issue 1649
----------------------------
Revision : 1.330
Date : 2006/1/15 16:55:46
Description :
removed a note from 3.2.1 (issue 1773)
----------------------------
Revision : 1.329
Date : 2006/1/11 21:57:43
Description :
gl 1.3 text - issue 1605 resolution
----------------------------
Revision : 1.328
Date : 2005/12/19 16:27:58
Description :
fixed numbering issue
----------------------------
Revision : 1.327
Date : 2005/12/19 16:24:40
Description :
addressed 4.2.2 copy of 2.3.1 in XSLT
----------------------------
Revision : 1.326
Date : 2005/12/16 23:15:28
Description :
published internal WD reflecting revisions as of Dec. 16
----------------------------
Revision : 1.325
Date : 2005/12/16 21:11:25
Description :
resolutions to issue 1771
----------------------------
Revision : 1.324
Date : 2005/12/16 21:6:52
Description :
updated definition of multimedia and resolution to issue 1652
----------------------------
Revision : 1.323
Date : 2005/12/16 21:5:1
Description :
updated dates for 12/16 internal draft
----------------------------
Revision : 1.322
Date : 2005/12/14 21:10:34
Description :
removed all informative sections (these are now included in the how to meet source)
----------------------------
Revision : 1.321
Date : 2005/12/14 20:34:57
Description :
added definition of video per 8 december 2005 call
----------------------------
Revision : 1.320
Date : 2005/12/8 21:58:22
Description :
fixed typos in definitions of live audio-only and live video-only
----------------------------
Revision : 1.319
Date : 2005/12/8 18:1:40
Description :
incorporated various changes per issue resolutions from 01 December.
----------------------------
Revision : 1.318
Date : 2005/12/7 0:14:55
Description :
incorporated resolutions from 1 december 2005 telecon
----------------------------
Revision : 1.317
Date : 2005/12/6 2:5:59
Description :
fixed typos
----------------------------
Revision : 1.316
Date : 2005/12/1 4:12:2
Description :
no message
----------------------------
Revision : 1.315
Date : 2005/12/1 3:51:48
Description :
switched to "editors drafts"
----------------------------
Revision : 1.314
Date : 2005/12/1 3:47:11
Description :
republished in WAI space
----------------------------
Revision : 1.313
Date : 2005/11/28 23:34:49
Description :
typos, removed spatial pattern definition
----------------------------
Revision : 1.312
Date : 2005/11/23 4:1:57
Description :
added a missing benefits section to 2.2.4
----------------------------
Revision : 1.311
Date : 2005/11/22 22:59:35
Description :
no message
----------------------------
Revision : 1.310
Date : 2005/11/22 21:15:34
Description :
fixed typos with 3.1 criteria in the guide and guidelines
----------------------------
Revision : 1.309
Date : 2005/11/22 20:20:20
Description :
fixed a few spelling mistakes
----------------------------
Revision : 1.308
Date : 2005/11/22 20:18:2
Description :
no message
----------------------------
Revision : 1.307
Date : 2005/11/22 19:54:2
Description :
non-text content fixes
----------------------------
Revision : 1.306
Date : 2005/11/22 19:21:12
Description :
repairs for non-text content def
----------------------------
Revision : 1.305
Date : 2005/11/22 19:4:33
Description :
added checklist links to top of slices and guide
----------------------------
Revision : 1.304
Date : 2005/11/22 18:48:13
Description :
added back a couple paragraphs from "normative sections" to the end
of "design principles"
----------------------------
Revision : 1.303
Date : 2005/11/22 18:45:27
Description :
1. deleted "normative sections of wcag 2.0"
2. updated intro w/gv's edits (to related documents)
----------------------------
Revision : 1.302
Date : 2005/11/22 17:4:22
Description :
numbering issues with 3.1, 3.2 and 4.1
----------------------------
Revision : 1.301
Date : 2005/11/22 16:51:42
Description :
no message
----------------------------
Revision : 1.300
Date : 2005/11/22 16:15:43
Description :
removed 3.1 (SC on mech to id all words)
----------------------------
Revision : 1.299
Date : 2005/11/22 15:34:3
Description :
added edits from Christophe for 2.5
----------------------------
Revision : 1.298
Date : 2005/11/22 7:27:37
Description :
fixed an issue w/ altlocs
----------------------------
Revision : 1.297
Date : 2005/11/22 7:9:5
Description :
updated introduction
----------------------------
Revision : 1.296
Date : 2005/11/22 5:56:54
Description :
fixed 4.2 numbering bug
----------------------------
Revision : 1.295
Date : 2005/11/22 5:44:0
Description :
fixed example to 1.1.3 based on gv's edits (to cut the end of the
example where it talked about 2 different uses of a link
to the symphony)
----------------------------
Revision : 1.294
Date : 2005/11/22 4:36:39
Description :
non-text content definition updates
----------------------------
Revision : 1.293
Date : 2005/11/22 4:6:7
Description :
no message
----------------------------
Revision : 1.292
Date : 2005/11/22 0:8:38
Description :
made "how to meet" links functional
----------------------------
Revision : 1.291
Date : 2005/11/21 23:37:41
Description :
no message
----------------------------
Revision : 1.290
Date : 2005/11/21 23:16:3
Description :
changed "contributors" to "acknowledgements"
added judy's u.s. D.O.E. ack to the section plus a note that
in last call, names would be listed.
----------------------------
Revision : 1.289
Date : 2005/11/21 21:45:12
Description :
1. added defn for navigational features
2. udpated 2.4.1 to read "navigational features..." instead of "perceivable features..."
----------------------------
Revision : 1.288
Date : 2005/11/21 7:25:45
Description :
sc and key terms through 4.2
----------------------------
Revision : 1.287
Date : 2005/11/21 7:12:12
Description :
sc and key terms through 3.2
----------------------------
Revision : 1.286
Date : 2005/11/21 6:42:56
Description :
sc and key terms through 2.5
----------------------------
Revision : 1.285
Date : 2005/11/21 6:14:41
Description :
sc and key terms through 2.3
----------------------------
Revision : 1.284
Date : 2005/11/20 17:10:8
Description :
1.3.6
----------------------------
Revision : 1.283
Date : 2005/11/20 16:48:6
Description :
1.3.5
----------------------------
Revision : 1.282
Date : 2005/11/20 16:29:42
Description :
1.3.4
----------------------------
Revision : 1.281
Date : 2005/11/20 0:27:1
Description :
added 1.2.5
----------------------------
Revision : 1.280
Date : 2005/11/20 0:5:45
Description :
added 1.2.3 and 1.2.4
----------------------------
Revision : 1.279
Date : 2005/11/19 18:8:19
Description :
XSLT for defintions
----------------------------
Revision : 1.278
Date : 2005/11/18 17:57:22
Description :
added 1.3.3
----------------------------
Revision : 1.277
Date : 2005/11/18 6:11:0
Description :
added 1.4.3
----------------------------
Revision : 1.276
Date : 2005/11/18 4:49:11
Description :
no message
----------------------------
Revision : 1.275
Date : 2005/11/18 3:19:45
Description :
2.1.1 updates and review
----------------------------
Revision : 1.274
Date : 2005/11/18 0:44:24
Description :
misc. cleanup
----------------------------
Revision : 1.273
Date : 2005/11/18 0:17:10
Description :
1.4.1 edits from Loretta
----------------------------
Revision : 1.272
Date : 2005/11/17 23:11:19
Description :
edits from the 17 Nov. mtg.
----------------------------
Revision : 1.271
Date : 2005/11/17 21:18:5
Description :
misc. fixes for validity, links to sc, specref, etc.
----------------------------
Revision : 1.270
Date : 2005/11/17 18:24:28
Description :
1.1.6
----------------------------
Revision : 1.269
Date : 2005/11/17 18:2:25
Description :
1.1.6
----------------------------
Revision : 1.268
Date : 2005/11/17 17:6:7
Description :
1.1.5
----------------------------
Revision : 1.267
Date : 2005/11/17 6:32:6
Description :
1.3.2 and 1.1.4
----------------------------
Revision : 1.266
Date : 2005/11/17 5:25:36
Description :
added ednotes for 1.2
----------------------------
Revision : 1.265
Date : 2005/11/17 4:57:42
Description :
added 1.1.3
----------------------------
Revision : 1.264
Date : 2005/11/16 18:28:15
Description :
started on 1.2.2
----------------------------
Revision : 1.257
Date : 2005/11/14 2:13:57
Description :
added template for SC numbering
----------------------------
Revision : 1.256
Date : 2005/11/14 0:29:20
Description :
no message
----------------------------
Revision : 1.255
Date : 2005/11/13 1:18:24
Description :
misc. editorial and formatting updates
----------------------------
Revision : 1.254
Date : 2005/11/3 16:57:44
Description :
misc. editorial and formatting updates
----------------------------
Revision : 1.253
Date : 2005/10/28 20:31:39
Description :
merged with slices experimentation (slices-exp) branch
----------------------------
Revision : 1.252
Date : 2005/9/19 20:30:
Description :
editorial
----------------------------
Revision : 1.251
Date : 2005/8/31 21:51:51
Description :
updated editors list
----------------------------
Revision : 1.250
Date : 2005/8/18 21:52:22
Description :
updates to move to updated xmlspec dtd and misc. editorial
----------------------------
Revision : 1.249
Date : 2005/8/11 19:4:11
Description :
updated references to ITC Broadcast Regulations to updated Ofcom regs. (annex 1)
Introduction
- Added link to "normative" in "Normative sections of WCAG 2.0" (Issue 359)
Principle 2
- Guideline 2.5: changed "typing errors" in benefit to "input errors." (Issue 1396)
- Guideline 2.5: changed level 2 success criterion 1 to read, "If an input error is
detected, the error is identified and described to the user in text." (Issue 1565)
- Guideline 2.5: updated an example to read, "In a form, there is a text box
for "birthday". The label for the text box includes the text "(MM-DD-YYYY)" to
indicate the format in which the date should be entered." (Issue 1744)
Principle 3
- Guideline 3.2: Removed examples 1, 2 and 3 based on resolutions from the 25 August 2005 telecon. (Issues 1414, 742, 514 and 707)
- Guideline 3.2: Revised benefits section based on resolutions from the 25 August 2005 telecon. (Issue 1338)
- Guideline 3.2: Removed level 1 success criterion, "
Any change of context is implemented in a manner that can be programmatically determined" based on resolutions from the 15 September 2005 telecon.
- Guideline 3.2: Revised level 2 success criterion to read "same relative order" instead of "same order" based on resolutions from the 15 September 2005 telecon.
- Guideline 3.2: Moved, "When any component receives focus, it does not cause a change of context" to level 1 based on resolutions from the 15 September 2005 telecon. (Issue 1746)
Glossary
- Revised definition of "non-text content" to read, "Content that is not represented by a Unicode character or sequence of Unicode characters. This includes ASCII Art, which is a pattern of characters." based on resolutions from the 28 July 2005 teleconference.
- Added definitions for "Lower secondary eduction level", "Primary education level" and "supplemental content" based on resolutions from the 15 September 2005 telecon.
- Added a definition for "same relative order" based on resolutions from the 15 September 2005 telecon.
- Removed "user interface controls" from definition of "change of context" based on resolutions from the 15 September 2005 telecon.
General
- Removed square bracket notation "[I]" (invisible) and "[V]" (visible) from the end of each success criterion per 21 July resolution.
Introduction
- Abstract: changed "Accessible means to a wide range of..." to Accessible means usable to a wide range of..."
- Abstract and Introduction: changed "wide range of assistive technology" to "wide range of assistive technologies"
- Abstract: Added link to Introduction to WCAG 2.0 Working Draft Documents.
Principle 1
- Guideline 1.1: split 1st benefit into 2 to clarify why someone who doesn't read well would benefit from text equivalents. (Issue 791)
- Guideline 1.1: updated example 4. (Issue 1369)
Principle 2
- Removed "subtle" from example 1 in guideline 2.4 (Issue 676)
- Guideline 2.1: removed "(because it is operable from the keyboard.)" from example 2 because redundant. (Issue 942)
- Guideline 2.1: added "or commands" to 2nd benefit so that it reads, "can use speech input (which simulates keystrokes or commands)"
Principle 3
- Guideline 3.1: Updated example 1 of guideline 3.1 to refer to abbreviations rather than acronyms. (Issue 784)
- Guideline 3.2: Revised Level 3 SC 2 to read "Changes of context are initiated only by user request." Was, Changes of context are initiated only by user action" per resolution at 14 july 2005 telecon.
Appendix
- Glossary: deleted definition of term "programmatically located" since it is no longer used in the guidelines or success criteria.
- Glossary: removed "Refer to Characters (in Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.1) for more information about the accepted character range." from the definition of text, per the 9 June 2005 resolution.
Introduction
- Conformance: Updated proposed wording for definitions of levels of
conformance: (see resolutions from 16 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- WCAG 2.0 conformance at level A means that all level 1 success
criteria in the guidelines are met assuming user agent support for
only the technologies in the chosen baseline.
- WCAG 2.0 conformance at level Double-A means that all level 1 and
all level 2 success criteria in the guidelines met assuming user
agent support for only the technologies in the chosen baseline.
- WCAG 2.0 conformance at level Triple-A means that all level 1,
level 2 and level 3 success criteria in the guidelines are met
assuming user agent support for only the technologies in the chosen
baseline.
- Conformance: Updated descriptions of levels 2 and 3 based on Andi's
proposals and resolutions from the 16 June
2005 face to face.
- Included significant revisions to introduction based on John's
proposals. (resolved in the 23 June
2005 telecon)
Principle 1
- Guideline 1.1: Level 1 SC1 updated to read, "For all non-text content
that is used to convey information, text alternatives identify the
non-text content and convey the same information. For multimedia, provide
a text alternative that identifies the multimedia. Note: Refer to
Guideline 1.2 for requirements for synchronized alternatives for
multimedia." (see resolutions from 16 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- Guideline 1.1: reversed order of level 1 SC1 and SC2 based on
resolutions from 13 June
2005 face to face meeting.
- Guideline 1.1: Updated success criterion to read, "For functional
non-text content, text alternatives serve the same purpose as the
non-text content. If text alternatives can not serve the same purpose as
the functional non-text content, text alternatives identify the purpose
of the functional non-text content. Note: Non-text content that uses
technologies outside the baseline must satisfy Guideline 4.2" (see
resolutions from 16 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- Guideline 1.1: Level 1 SC4 updated to read, "Non-text content that is
not functional, is not used to convey information, and does not create a
specific sensory experience is implemented such that it can be ignored by
assistive technology." based on Wendy's proposal and resolutions from 13 June
2005 face to face meeting. (Issue
1487)
- Guideline 1.1: Removed L1 SC5, "Any text alternatives are explicitly
associated with the non-text content." and (see resolutions from 15 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- Guideline 1.1: Level 1 SC6 updated to read, "For live audio-only or
live video-only content, text alternatives at least identify the purpose
of the content with a descriptive label. Note: Refer to Guideline 1.2 for
guidance on content that combines live audio and video." based on Wendy's
proposal and resolutions from 13 June
2005face to face meeting.
- Guideline 1.1: Revised Level 3 SC1 to read, "For prerecorded multimedia
content, a combined transcript of captions and audio descriptions of
video is available." based on resolutions from 13 June
2005 face to face meeting. (Issue
1488)
- Guideline 1.2: Removed 1.2 L1 SC3, "If multimedia content is
rebroadcast from another medium, the accessibility features required by
policy for that medium are intact." because it is a subset of the other
requirements at level 1. (see resolutions from 13 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- Guideline 1.3: Updated guideline text to read, "Ensure that
information, functionality, and structure can be separated from
presentation." (see resolutions from 16 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- Guideline 1.3: Update L1 SC3 to read, " When information is conveyed by
color, the color can be programmatically determined or the information is
also conveyed through another means that does not depend on the user's
ability to differentiate colors." (see resolutions from 16 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- Guideline 1.3: Update L1 SC2 to read, "Information that is conveyed by
variations in presentation of text is also conveyed in text or the
variations in presentation of text can be programmatically determined." and moved to level 2.
(see resolutions from 16 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- Guideline 1.3: Updated L2 SC2 to read, "Any information that is
conveyed by color is visually evident when color is not available." (see
resolutions from 23 June
2005 meeting.)
Principle 2
- Guideline 2.1: Updated guideline text to read, "Make all functionality
operable via a keyboard interface." (see resolutions from 13 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- Guideline 2.1: Removed L2SC1, "Wherever a choice between input device
event handlers is available and supported, the more abstract event is
used," because this is covered by L1 SC1. This is actually a possible
tech (depending upon technology) for satisfying L1 SC1. (see resolutions
from 13 June face to face meeting.)
- Guideline 2.1: Updated L3 SC to read, "All functionality of the content
can be operated through a keyboard interface." (resolved 15 June 2005,
refer to 16
June 2005 minutes)
- Guideline 2.2: replaced "content" with "functionality" in the examples
section. (Issue
1422)
- Guideline 2.2: revised Level 2 SC1 to read, "Content does not blink for
more than 3 seconds, or a method is available to stop any blinking
content in the delivery unit."
- Guideline 2.2: add a new criterion at level 3 that reads, "When an
authenticated session has an inactivity timeout, the user can continue
the activity without loss of data after re-authenticating."
- Guideline 2.3: Updated success criteria to remove references to
international standards and updated related definitions. (see resolutions
from 23 June
2005)
- Guideline 2.4: Removed note about overlap with guidline 1.3 in L1 SC1,
"Note: Conforming to the first level 1 criterion in Guideline 1.3
Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from
presentationalso addresses this guideline at level 1." (see
resolutions from 13 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- Guideline 2.4: Moved L3SC2 to level 2, "Delivery units have descriptive
titles [I]" (see resolutions from 13 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- Guideline 2.4: Updated Level 1 SC 1 to read, "Navigational features can
be programmatically identified." based on resolutions from the 9 June 2005
telecon.
- Guideline 2.4: added new level 2 criterion that reads, "The destination
of each programmatic reference to another delivery unit is identified
through words or phrases that either occur in text or can be
programmatically determined. (resolved 15 June 2005, refer to 16 June
2005 minutes)
- Guideline 2.4: added new level 3 criterion that reads, "Information
about the user's location within a set of delivery units is available."
(resolved 15 June 2005, refer to 16 June
2005 minutes)
- Guideline 2.5: Removed the phrase, "where not reversible" from L2 SC3
items (b) and (c). (see resolutions from 13 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- Guideline 2.5: Removed level 3 SC 2, "Where text entry is required for
which there is a known set of less than 75 valid choices and they can be
provided without jeopardizing security or purpose, users are allowed to
select from a list of options as well as to type the data directly." (see
resolutions from 13 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- Guideline 2.5: updated level 3 SC 1 to read, "Additional context
relevant assistance is available for text input." was "If possible for
the natural language of the text, an option is provided to check text
entries for misspelled words with suggestions for correct spellings."
(see resolutions from 13 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
Principle 3
- Guideline 3.1: Revised L1 SC2 to read, "A mechanism for finding the
expanded form of acronyms and abbreviations is available," and moved it
to level 3. (see resolutions from 14 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- Guideline 3.1: Revised L2 SC1 to read, "A mechanism is available for
finding definitions for all words in text content." (see resolutions from
14 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- Guideline 3.1: Revised L2 SC2 to read, "The natural language of each
foreign passage or phrase in the content can be programmatically
determined. Foreign passages or phrases are passages or phrases in a
language that is different from the language of the surrounding text.
Note: This requirement does not apply to individual words or to phrases
that have become part of the primary language of the content." (see
resolutions from 14 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- Guideline 3.1: Added a new criterion, "When text requires reading
ability at or above the upper secondary education level, one or more of
the following supplements is available: 1. A text summary that requires
reading ability no higher than primary education level. 2. Graphical
illustrations of concepts or processes that must be understood in order
to use the content. 3. A spoken version of the text content." (see
resolutions from 14 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- Guideline 3.1: Updated L3 SC2 to read, "Section titles are
descriptive."
- Guideline 3.1: Removed L3 SC3, "There is a statement associated..."
(see resolutions from 14 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- Guideline 3.2: Removed benefit, "Using captions to note changes in
speaker is beneficial for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and
who may be unable to discern changes in speaker for audio-only
presentations." (see resolutions from 13 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- Guideline 3.2: L1 SC1 replaced "programmatically identified" with
"programmatically determined" for consistency with other criterion. (see
resolutions from 13 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- Guideline 3.2: L2 SC1 updated to read, "Components that are repeated on
multiple delivered units on a set of delivery units occur in the same
order each time they are repeated." (see resolutions from 13 June
2005 and 16 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- Guideline 3.2: L2 SC2 updated to read, "Any component that can receive
focus does not cause an extreme change in context when focus is
received." based on Alex's proposals and resolutions from the 13 June
face to face.
- Guideline 3.2: Level 2 SC3 updated to read, "Changing the setting of
any input field does not automatically cause an extreme change in
context." (see resolutions from 13 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- Guideline 3.2: L2 SC4 updated to read, "Functional components that are
repeated on a set of delivery units provide similar functionality
wherever they appear."
- Guideline 3.2: Delete L2 SC6, "The destination of each link is
identified through words or phrases that either occur in the link or can
be programmatically determined." (see resolutions from 13 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- Guideline 3.2: Delete L3 SC2, "Components that appear visually on
multiple pages, such as navigation bars, search forms, and sections
within the main content, are displayed in the same location relative to
other content on every page or screen where they appear." (see
resolutions from 13 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- Guideline 3.2: Delete L3 SC3, "When components such as navigation menus
and search forms appear on multiple pages, users can choose to have those
elements presented in a different visual position or reading-order." (see
resolutions from 13 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- Guideline 3.2: Moved L3 SC 5, "When content is arranged in a sequence
that affects its meaning, that sequence can be determined
programmatically" to guideline 1.3. (see resolutions from 13 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- Guideline 3.2: Updated guideline text to read, "Make the placement and
functionality of content predictable." (see resolutions from 14 June
2005 and 16 June
2005 face to face meeting minutes.)
- Guideline 3.2: changed "extreme change of context" to "change of
context" (see resolutions from 16 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- Guideline 3.2: removed L2SC5, "Explicit notice is given in advance of
any extreme change of context." (see resolutions from 16 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- Guideline 3.2: Revised L2SC4 to read, "Components that have the same
functionality in multiple delivery units within a set of delivery units
are labeled consistently." (see resolutions from 16 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- Guideline 3.2: Revised L3 SC2 to read, "Changes of context are
initiated only by user action."
Principle 4
- Guideline 4.1: removed all criterion pending discussions about priority
for validity. (see resolutions from 23 June
2005)
- Guideline 4.2: Included extensive edits to 4.2 based on proposals
from the 13-16 June face to face. (see resolutions from 23 June
2005)
- Guideline 4.2: Removed level 3 SC1, "The Web resource includes a list
of the technologies user agents must support in order for its content to
work as intended. The list is documented in metadata if such metadata is
supported by the format, otherwise it is documented in a policy statement
associated with the content." (see resolutions from 15 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- Guideline 4.2: Removed level 3 SC2, "Users who do not have one or more
of these technologies can still access and use the resource, though the
experience may be degraded." (see resolutions from 15 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- Guideline 4.2: Removed level 3 SC3, "Technologies and features on the
required list are open standards or have a public specification." (see
resolutions from 15 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
Appendix
- Added a definition for "navigational features": Navigational features:
Something that allows the user to locate and/or move to a different piece
of content than the one currently with focus. Examples of navigational
features are links and components that are grouped so they can be
bypassed. (see resolutions from 16 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- Added a definition for "change of context": A change of user agent,
viewport, user interface controls, or focus; or complete change of
content.
- Updated the definition of "multimedia" to read, "For the purposes of
these guidelines, multimedia refers to combined audio and video
presentations. It also includes audio-only and video-only presentations
that include interaction."
- Updated definition of "non-text content." (see resolutions from 15 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- Updated definition of "functional." (see resolutions from 15 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- Updated definition of "text-alternative" to read, "Programmatically
determined text that is used in place of non-text content or text that is
used in addition to non-text content and referred to from the
programmatically determined text." (see resolutions from 15 June
2005 face to face meeting.)
- Removed the following definitions because they were no longer
referenced by the guidelines:
- complex content
- controlled languages
- event handler
- explicitly associated
- programmatic user interface component
- site navigation mechanism
- text description
- text label
- time-dependent presentation
Principle 1
- Guideline 1.4: Removed the explanatory note from Level 1 SC1 based on
resolutions from the 9 June 2005
telecon. (Issue
1373)
- Guideline 1.4: Updated L2 SC3 to read, "A mechanism is available to
turn off background audio that plays automatically." based on resolutions
from the 9
June 2005 telecon.
Principle 2
- Guideline 2.4: Updated Level 1 SC 1 to read, "Navigational features can
be programmatically determined." based on resolutions from the 9 June 2005
telecon.
- Guideline 2.4: Updated Level 2 SC 1, "More than one way is available to
locate content within a set of delivery units." based on resolutions from
the 9 June
2005 telecon.
- Guideline 2.4: Updated Level 2 SC 2, "Blocks of content that are
repeated on multiple perceivable units are implemented so that they can
be bypassed." based on resolutions from the 9 June 2005
telecon.
- Guideline 2.4: Updated Level 3 SC 1 to read, "When content is arranged
in a sequence that affects its meaning, that sequence can be determined
programmatically." and moved it to guideline 3.1, level 3 based on
resolutions from the 9 June 2005
telecon.
- Guideline 2.4: Removed 4 success criterion based on resolutions from
the 9 June
2005 telecon because they are all techniques for the same thing:
splitting up complex content into more manageable pieces.
- Level 2 SC 1, "Documents that have five or more section headings
and are presented as a single delivery unit include a table of
contents with links to important sections of the document."
- Level 3 SC 3, "Images have structure that users can access."
- Level 3 SC 5, "Text is divided into paragraphs."
- Level 3 SC 6, " Documents are divided into hierarchical sections
and subsections that have descriptive titles."
Principle 3
- Guideline 3.1: Updated guideline text to read, "Make text content
readable and understandable." based on resolutions from the 2 June 2005
telecon.
Glossary
- Updated definition of ASCII art, "a picture created by a spatial
arrangement of characters (typically from the 95 printable characters
defined by ASCII). " based on resolutions from the 9 June 2005
telecon.
- Updated definition of text, "A sequence of characters. Characters are
those included in the Unicode / ISO / IEC 106464 repertoire." based on
resolutions from the 9 June 2005
telecon.
Introduction
Principle 1
- Guideline 1.3: Updated L1 SC1 to read, "Structures within the content
can be programmatically determined," was "Structures and relationships
within the content can be programmatically determined." based on Joe's
Proposal for 1.3 and resolutions from the 5 May 2005
telecon.
Principle 2
Principle 3
- Guideline 3.1: revised level 1 SC1 to read, "The primary natural
language or languages of the delivery unit can be programmatically
determined." Refer to John's
proposals for guideline 3.1 and resolutions from the 26
May 2005 telecon.
- Guideline 3.1: revised level 2 SC2 to read, "A mechanism is available
for identifying specific definitions of words used in an unusual or
restricted way, including idioms and jargon." and moved it to level 3
SC1. Refer to John's
proposals for guideline 3.1 and resolutions from the 26
May 2005 telecon.
Principle 4
Glossary
A complete
list of issues addressed in this draft is availale.
General
- Inluded the words "of video" following the term "audio descriptions"
throughout. (Issue
980)
Principle 1
- Guideline 1.1: modified level 1, item 1 to read, "For all non-text
content that is functional, such as graphical links or buttons, text
alternatives serve the same purpose as the non-text content." based on John's
proposal and discussion at the December 2, 2004
telecon.
- Guideline 1.3: Included revisions to level 1 and 2 success criterion
based on Becky's
proposed revisions and discussion at the December 2 and
December 9,
2004 teleconferences. (Issue
#317)
- Guideline 1.4: added "or other background sounds" to second benefit (Issue
939)
- Guideline 1.4: revised example 1 to read, "A background image and text
are arranged so that there is no image behind the text or the image is so
faint that the difference between the darkest part of the image and the
text (which is dark) meets the standard foreground/background contrast
requirements. The image behind the text also does not contain lines that
are about the same width as the characters so they do not interfere with
character recognition. This example could also apply to light letters on
a dark background." (Issue
1038)
Principle 2
- Guideline 2.4 example 1: changed "accepted use of labelling the
structure", to read, "accepted way of labelling the structure." (Issue
#994)
Principle 3
- Guideline 3.2: Level 3, SC 2 revised to read, "when read by themselves
or as a group" was, "when read by themselves as a group" (typo).
Principle 4
- Moved example from guideline 4.1 to guideline 4.2 (Issue
820)
- Guideline 4.2, level 1, item 1: changed "plugin" to "user agent" per Loretta's
proposal and added def. for user agent from UAAG. (Issue
848)
Appendix A
- definition of structure: revised based on John's
proposal and decisions at the February 3,
2005 telecon.
- definition of general flash threshold: revised rectangle size to 335 x
268, was 355 x 268 (typo).
The 19 November 2004 Working Draft was published on the W3C Technical
Reports page. Refer to Changes in 19 November
2004 WD for changes between the 11 March 2004 and the 19 November 2005
Working Drafts.
General
- Introduction: included editorial changes to intro per john's
email.
Principle 2
Glossary
- added definitions for multimedia, video-only, extended audio
description
- removed definition for transcript (not used and not defined)
General
- changed "AA" to "Double-A"
- changed "AAA" to "Triple-A"
Introduction
Principle 1
Principle 2
- Guideline 2.2: Incorporated resolutions from the November 4 telecon
and Roberto
Castaldo's summary.
- replaced "time-limit" with "time-out" in level one criterion
- revised guideline text to read, "Allow users to control time limits
on their reading or interaction." was, "Allow users to control time
limits on their reading or interaction unless specific real-time
events or rules of competition make such control impossible."
- changed level 1 criterion 1 to read, "true for each time-out that
is a function of the content" was, "... true for each time limit"
- revised level 2, item one to read, "A method is provided to stop content that blinks
for more than 3 seconds." was, "The user is allowed to turn off content that blinks for more than 3 seconds."
- revised level 2, item two to read, "A method is provided to pause
and/or permanently stop dynamic (moving or time-based) content," was,
"The user is allowed to pause and/or permanently stop moving or
time-based content."
- revised level 3, item one to read, "The content has been designed
in a way that any time-outs in the content would pass level 1,
success criteria 1 for this guideline and timing is not designed to
be an essential part of the activity," was, "The content has been
designed in a way that any time limits in the content would pass
level 1, success criteria 1 for this guideline without exceptions."
and removed editorial note.
- Guideline 2.3: Incorporated Gregg's
proposals for 2.3, which moved the specific details for General
Flash, Red Flash and Spatial Pattern Threshholds to the glossary and
references International Health and Safety Standards for each.
- Guideline 2.4: Incorporated John's
proposals for 2.4.
- added level 1 criterion (identical to 1.3 level 1), "Structures and
relationships within the content can be determined
programmatically."
- revised level 2 criterion to read, "Documents that have five or
more section headings and are presented as a single delivery unit
include a table of contents with links to important sections of the
document." was, " In documents greater than 50,000 words or sites
larger than 50 perceived pages, at least one of the following is
provided."
- added new criterion, "There is more than one way to locate the
content of each delivery unit, including but not limited to link
groups, a site map, site search or other navigation mechanism."
- revised level 2 criterion to read, "Blocks of repeated material,
such as navigation menus and document headers, are marked up so that
they can be bypassed by people who use assistive technology or who
navigate via keyboard or keyboard interface." was, "Large blocks of
material that are repeated on multiple pages, such as navigation
menus with more than 8 or more links, can be bypassed by people who
use screen readers or who navigate via keyboard or keyboard
interface."
- revised level 3 criterion to read, "When content is arranged in a
sequence that affects its meaning, that sequence can be determined
programmatically." was, " Information is provided that would indicate
at least one logical sequence in which to read a document."
- added new criterion: "When a page or other delivery unit is navigated
sequentially, elements receive focus in an order that follows
relationships and sequences in the content."
- revised level 3 criterion to read, "Images have structure that users can access."
was "Diagrams are constructed so that they have structure that users can access."
- removed criterion, "Logical tab order has been created."
- revised level 3 criterion to read, "Delivery units have descriptive
titles." was, " Each page or other resource that can be accessed
separately and that supports a title has a title that identifies the
subject or purpose of the resource"
- removed level 3 criterion: " There is a statement associated with
the content asserting that items from the following list were
considered..."
- added new level 3 criterion: "Text is divided into paragraphs."
- added new level 3 criterion: "Documents are divided into
hierarchical sections and subsections that have descriptive titles.
"
- Guideline 2.5: Incorporated Andi's
proposals for 2.5.
- revised level 2, criterion 2 to read, "If a user error is detected,
and suggestions for correction are known and can be provided without
jeopardizing security or purpose, the error is identified and the
suggestions are provided." was, " If a user error is detected, and
suggestions for correction are known and can be provided without
jeopardizing security or purpose (for example, test validity), they
are provided (in an accessible form that meets Level 1 success
criteria)."
- revised level 3, item 1 to read, "Where text entry is required for
which there is a known set of less than 75 valid choices, and they
can be provided without jeopardizing security or purpose, users are
allowed to select from a list of options as well as to type the data
directly." was, "Where the input options are known, there are less
than 75 of them, and they can be provided without jeopardizing
security, test validity, etc, users are allowed to select from a list
of options as well as to enter text directly."
- revised level 3, item 2 to read, "If possible for the natural
language of the text, an option is provided to check text entries for
misspelled words with suggestions for correct spellings." was,
"Checks for misspelled words are applied and correct spellings are
suggested when text entry is required."
- revised example one and added 6 new examples
Principle 3
- Guideline 3.1: Revised example describing a complex natural event (Issue
#381)
- Guideline 3.1: Removed example 5, "a child's report of a school trip."
(Issue
#702)
General
- replaced "text-equivalent" with "text alternative" per [Editorial]
Text alternatives.
- replaced all instances of "derived programmatically" with
"programmatically determined" per September 30, 2004 teleconference
Introduction
- Included a link to general techniques and scripting techniques in list
of Technology-specific application information.
Principle 1
Principle 4
- Guidelines 4.1: Updated link to IBM in example. (Issue
1103)
Introduction
- added information about authoring tools and references to
ATAG.
(Issue
998)
Principle 1
- Guideline 1.3: Included links to updated gateway draft.
30 July 2004 (TR) Working Draft
The 30 July 2004 Working Draft was published on the W3C Technical Reports
page. Refer to Changes in 30 March
2004 WD for changes between the 11 March 2004 and 30 July 2004 Public
Working Drafts.
Introduction
- updated status section to include information about the W3C patent
policy.
- How to read this document: Included links to HTML and CSS working
drafts.
Principle 1
- Guideline 1.1: Included links to Gateway document to illustrate how
guidelines might connect to techniques documents.
Introduction
Principle 1
Principle 2
- Guideline 2.1: revised level 3 success criteria to read, "All
functionality of the content is designed to be operated through a
keyboard or keyboard interface." Was, "All of the functionality of the
content is operable via a keyboard or keyboard interface." (Issue
891)
- Guideline 2.4: removed success criterion, "Different structural
elements look or sound different from each other and from body text." (Issue
780)
- Guideline 2.4: removed item "c" and "d" from level 3, item 4,
"Supplying an informative title for each page or resource that can be
accessed independently (for example, from a search results page)," and,
"Supplying a unique title for each page or resource that can be accessed
independently (for example, from a search results page)." (Issue
830)
- Guideline 2.4: added new criterion at level 2 that reads, "Each page or
other resource that can be accessed separately and that supports a title
has a title that identifies the subject or purpose of the resource. " (Issue
830)
- Guideline 2.4: removed criteria from level 3, "Structural emphasis is
evident on at least the following displays: (a) black and white monitor,
(b) low resolution screens (160 x 160 pixels), (c) "mono" audio playback
devices." ()
Principle 3
- Guideline 3.1: removed criterion from level 2, "Page titles are
informative." (Issue
830)
- Guideline 3.2: revised success criterion for clear link text to read,
"The destination of each link is identified through words or phrases that
either occur in the link or can be programmatically determined." Was,
"The target of each link is clearly identified." (Issue
832)
Glossary
- Included a definition for "link." (Issue
894)
General
- Added a link to the TOC per suggestion from EOWG
in issue
357.
- Added unique id attributes for each success criterion to facilitate
links from supporting documents (techniques, checklists, gateway,
etc...)
Introduction
Principle 2
- Included revisions to benefits section of guideline 2.5 per issue
693.
Principle 3
- Incorporated updates to 3.1 based on the May 20, 2004 telecon and Tom's
proposal.
The 11 March 2004 Working Draft was published on the W3C Technical Reports
page. Refer to Changes in 11 March
2004 WD for changes between the 24 June 2003 and 11 March 2004 Working
Drafts.
General
- Updated reference to change log. Created separate change logs to track
changes between public vs internal drafts.
- Updated editorial notes to indicated progress on draft, open issues and
to-do items.
- Removed inline references to guideline issues.
Introduction
- Updated priorities and techniques section related to the differences
between WCAG 1.0 and 2.0
- User needs section, revised text, "Someone who cannot hear will want a
visual representation of information presented via sound." Was, "Someone
who cannot hear will want to see the information normally presented via
sound."
- User needs section, revised text, "Someone who cannot see will want to
hear or feel (via braille or tactile graphics) an equivalent of the
visual information." Was, "Someone who cannot see will want to hear or
read through braille information that is usually presented visually."
Principle 1
- Guideline 1.1, Level1, SC1: revised exception to read, "If the non-text
content is part of a test (for example, a spelling test) and providing a
text-equivalent would defeat the purpose of the test, a text-equivalent
would not be required." Was, "If the purpose is to let users provide the
text-equivalent (for example, a spelling test) then the text-equivalent
is not required."
- Guideline 1.1: Removed, Characters that are not in Unicode or can not
be automatically mapped to Unicode are not text.
- Guideline 1.5: removed "default" from guideline text to read, " In
auditory presentations, make it easy to distinguish foreground speech and
sounds from background sounds." Was, "In default auditory
presentations..."
Principle 3
- Moved contents from previous Appendix E (Strategies for reducing
complexity) to the last of the Level 3 success criteria.
Glossary
- Revised definition of "competitive activity" to "activity where timing
is essential".
General
- Added a square bracket notation at the end of each criteria. "[V]"
(visible) indicates that a criterion does not specify how information is
presented and "[I]" (invisible) indicates that addressing the criterion
may require an author to present content in particular ways.
- Removed single word at beginning of principles. Instead, the word is
emphasized in a short phrase.
- Included Level 2 and Level 3 success criteria in blue boxes. All
normative information is now boxed in blue.
- Used consistent capitalization and punctuation in success criteria and
other lists.
Introduction
- Edited Priorities and Techniques to increase readability.
- Replaced "are testable (machine or reliably human)" with "some are
machine-testable. Others require human judgment. Success criteria that
require human testing yield consistent results among multiple
testers."
Overview of Design Principles
- Reworded "User needs" to remove ambiguous phrases.
Principle 1
Guideline numbers correspond to the 14 February 2004 Working Draft. Many
numbers are different as several Guidelines were combined.
- Guideline 1.1
- Added exception to Level 1 success criterion #1.
- Added Note to Level 1 success criteria.
- Guideline 1.2
- Removed exception to Level 1 success criterion #2.
- Adopted proposed exception to Level 1 success criterion #3.
- Adopted proposed rewording to Level 1 success criteria 4, 5, and 6
and Level 2 success criteria #1.
- Deleted Level 3 success criterion.
- Guideline 1.3
- Guideline 1.4
- Combined Guideline 1.4 from the 14 February draft ("For text, use
fonts that can be represented in Unicode") with 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 ala
Gregg's
proposal from 17 February
into a new 3.1.
- Guideline 1.5
- Incorporated Guideline 1.5 from the 14 February draft ("Make
structure perceivable") into 2.4 (" Content includes mechanisms to
facilitate orientation and movement") ala Gregg's
proposal from 1 March.
- Guideline 1.6
- Renumbered to 1.4 in the 1 March 2004 WD.
- Added Level 3 criteria (two of them).
Principle 2
- Guideline 2.2
- Removed redundant benefit information.
- Guideline 2.3
- Changed emphasis from avoiding flicker to designing content so that
users can avoid content that causes photosensitive epilepsy.
- Added definitions of General Flash Threshold, Red Flash Threshold,
and Spatial Pattern Thresholds.
- Reworked success criteria at all three levels to refer to these
thresholds per Gregg's
proposal of 17 February 2004 (to
address this list of bugs).
- Guideline 2.4
- Guideline 2.5
Principle 3
- Guideline 3.1
- Combined Guidelines 1.4 ( For text, use fonts that can be
represented in Unicode.), 3.1 ( Make it possible for automated
devices to identify languages used in the content.), 3.2 ( The
complete wording of abbreviations and acronyms can be unambiguously
(clearly) determined), and 3.3 ( Use the clearest wording that is
consistent with the purpose of the content. Provide summaries or
paraphrases of complex material, and provide visual or auditory
illustrations as appropriate) into a new 3.1 per Gregg's
summary of 22 February to read " Ensure that the meaning of
content can be determined."
- Guideline 3.4
- Renumbered as 3.2 since 3.2 and 3.3 were incorporated into 3.1.
- Revised based on John
Slatin's proposal from 25 February and then reworked on the list
and in discussion (26 February
telecon). Changes include:
- Added one Level 1 criterion, two Level 2 criteria, and 3 Level
3 criteria
- Reworked to increase testability.
Appendix A Glossary
- Deleted terms or phrases that were no longer used, such as
- ability to be expressed in words
- explicitly associated
- marked in way that the user can access prior to its appearance
- Added definitions for ASCII art, normative, programmatically
determined, programmatically located, text, text description, text label,
Unicode, Wisconsin Computer Equivalence Algorithm
Appendix E Additional Notes
- Moved "Strategies for reducing complexity" to Guideline 3.1
General
- Added links to issue reports for each guideline.
- updated status section according to changes in pubrules.
Principle 1
- Guideline 1.1: updated level 3 success criterion to read, "a text
document (for example, a movie script) is provided that includes all
important visual information, dialogue, and other important sounds."
based on the minutes from the
Nov. 2003 F2F. Was, "a single text document (e.g. script) is provided
that includes all important visual information, dialogue, and other
important sounds)."
- Guideline 1.6: updated guideline text to, "In visual presentations,
make it easy to distinguish foreground words and images from the
background." was, " Foreground content is easily differentiable from
background for visual default presentations." Issue
#616.
- Guideline 1.6: added a success criteria to level one that reads, "Any
text that is presented over a background is electronically available so
that it could be re-presented in a form that allows the text to be
distinguished from the background." Issue
#660.
- Guideline 1.6: updated level 2 success criterion to read, "text that is
presented over a background has a contrast greater than ____ between the
text and the background as measured by ___ or the page provides a
mechanism to allow the text to meet this criterion." Issue
#344.
- Guideline 1.6: removed level 3 success criterion addressing gayscale
pending more info about testing algorithm. Issue
#617 and #618.
- Guideline 1.7: updated guideline text to read, " In default auditory
presentations, make it easy to distinguish foreground speech and sounds
from background sounds." Was, " Foreground content is easily
differentiable from background for auditory default presentations." Issue
#619.
- Guideline 1.7: moved level 2 success criteria to level 3, updated
wording for criteria and note per issue
#620.
- Guideline 1.7: added "most" to example 1 per suggestion in issue
#680.
Principle 2
- Guideline 2.1: implemented a number of changes described in the 30
Jan 2004 Guideline 2.1 Proposal.
- Guideline 2.2: updated guideline text to read, "Allow users to control
time limits on their reading or interaction unless specific real-time
events or rules of competition make such control impossible." was, "Users
can control any time limits on their reading, interaction, or responses
unless control is not possible due to nature of real-time events or
competition." Issue
#626.
- Guideline 2.2: updated success criteria based on plain language
proposals, issue review and telecon discussions. Issues
593, 627, 628, 629, 683, 684, 685, 686, 687, 743.
Principle 4
General
- removed alternate views
- added "[level 2 guideline]" notation to headings and table of contents
indicating guidelines that do not have Level 1 criteria.
Principle 1
- reworded principle 1. Now reads, "Content must be Perceivable." was
"PERCEIVABLE. Make Content Perceivable by Any User."
- Guideline 1.1: reworded guideline text to, "For non-text content,
provide text equivalents that serve the same purpose or convey the same
information as the non-text content, except when the purpose of the
non-text content is to create a specific sensory experience (for example,
music and visual art) in which case a text label or description is
sufficient." Was, "All non-text content that can be expressed in words
has a text equivalent of the function or information that the non-text
content was intended to convey."
- Guideline 1.1: reworded first level 1 success criteria to, "text
equivalents are explicitly associated with non-text content, except when
the non-text content is intended to create a specific sensory experience
(for example, music without words and visual art)." Was, "non-text
content that can be expressed in words has a text-equivalent explicitly
associated with it."
- Guideline 1.1: reworded bullet item under first level 1 success
criteria to, " the text equivalent fulfills the same function as the
author intended for the non-text content (that is, it conveys all of the
intended information and achieves the same function as the non-text
content)." Was, "The text equivalent fulfills 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).
- Guideline 1.1: reworded second level 1 success criterion to, "non-text
content that is designed to create a specific sensory experience (such as
music without words or visual art) has a text label or a text description
explicitly associated with it." Was "non-text content that can not be
expressed in words has a descriptive label provided as its
text-equivalent."
- Guideline 1.1, level 2: removed " non-text content that can not be
expressed in words has a text equivalent for all aspects that can be
expressed in words.
- Guideline 1.1, level 3: moved "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," from level 2 and reworded to " a single text
document (e.g. script) is provided that includes all important visual
information, dialogue, and other important sounds)."
- Guideline 1.1, third best practice item changed to "People who are
deaf-blind can read the text in braille." Was, "Individuals who are blind
or deaf-blind can have the information presented in braille."
- Guideline 1.2: reworded guideline text to, " Provide synchronized media
equivalents for time-dependent presentations." Was "Synchronized media
equivalents are provided for time-dependent presentations."
- Guideline 1.2: level 1 success criteria item 1 now reads, " an audio
description of visual events is provided for audio-visual media." Was,
"an audio description is provided."
- Guideline 1.2: level 1 success criteria item 2 now reads, " captions
are provided for all significant dialogue and sounds in time-dependent
material." Was, " all significant dialogue and sounds are captioned "
- Guideline 1.7: removed duplicate example that applies to 1.6.
Principle 3
- Guideline 3.1: removed references to abbreviations and acronyms from
benefits.
Principle 4
- Guideline 4.3: removed language in benefits referring to "baseline"
user agent requirements.
This working draft was the result of a series of reorganization proposals
submitted for consideration during the summer of 2003. The list of proposed
reorganizations contributing to the evolution of this draft follows:
- Review
Draft - 16 July 2003
- REORG
proposal #2 - 29 July 2003
- Reorganization
proposal (CKW) - 8 September 2003
- Sept. 23
Reorganization Proposal - 23 September 2003
- Reorganization
5 overview, draft - 8 October
2003
General
- incorporated changes (and removed revision markup) for resolved issues
321,
360,
379,
343,
342,
338,
324,
332,
329,
436,
328,
334,
351,
349,
348,
347,
345,
340,
339,
337,
336,
335,
333.
- changed success criteria headings from required and best practice to
level 1, level 2 and level 3
- dropped square bracketed indications of past checkpoint numbering. Issue
391.
- with the exception of checkpoints 1.5, 3.3 and 3.4, all additional
notes were moved to best practice or combined with existing best practice
items.
- Changed Guidelines to Principles and Checkpoints to Guidelines
- added square bracket notation [X] and [Y] to the end of each success
criterion as a basis for discussion of criterion types.
- Added a placeholder section to each guideline titled "not reliably
testable" for sorting candidates for removal from the guidelines.
- included multiple non-normative, alternate views of the document to
facilitate viewing preferences.
- changed stylesheet to emphasize required criterion and de-emphasize
informative content
- made significant changes to the conformance section, describing levels
of conformance in terms of Single-A, Double-A and Triple-A.
Principle 1
- Guideline 1.2 - moved bullet about collated text transcripts to
checkpoint 1.1, additional notes.
- Guideline 1.2 - moved information about audio description to glossary
per CKW
proposal.
- Guideline 1.3 - moved "any blinking content can be turned off." to
level 2 and added additional criteria, "Any moving content can be
paused." per Issue
325.
- Guideline 1.4 - changed guideline text to read, "All text can be
decoded into words represented in Unicode," was "All characters and words
in the content can be unambiguously decoded."
- Guideline 1.5 - removed "positioning and labels" and "to more people"
from checkpoint text per CKW
proposal.
- Guideline 1.6 - separated audio and visual contrast into two checkpoint
per
CKW proposal.
- Guideline 1.6 Benefits - reworded to "Individuals with low vision can
easily make out characters in the content even if they don't have the
wide field of view or full range of color perception used by fully
sighted persons to separate text from background images," was,
"Individuals with low vision can easily make out characters in the
content even if they don't have the wide field of view used by fully
sighted persons to separate text from background images."
Principle 2
- Guideline 2.1 - removed "concisely" from first success criterion. now
reads, "all of the functionality of the content, where the functionality
or its outcome can be expressed in words, is operable at a minimum
through a keyboard or keyboard interface." and links to the definition of
"ability to be expressed in words"
- Guideline 2.2 - combined required and best practice criteria to read,
"content is designed so that time limits are not an essential part of
interaction or at least one of the following is true for each time
limit."
- Guideline 2.2 - moved BP item, "any blinking content can be turned off"
to BP under 1.3. CKW draft suggested that this is usually an issue of
content/structure separation and that it should be associated with
techniques from 1.3.
- Guideline 2.4 - now reads, "Mechanisms have been added to facilitate
orientation and movement in content." (removed "Structure and/or
alternate navigation" fom beginning per CKW reccomendation.)
- Guideline 2.4 - dropped an editorial note explaining the rationale for
combining old 3.1 and 3.2.
- Guideline 2.5 - changed required item 1 to "if a user error is
detected, the error is identified and (where possible) suggestions for
correction are provided (in an accessible form that meets core
checkpoints). ," was "if an error is detected, feedback is provided to
the user identifying the error (in an accessible form that meets Level A
of the guidelines)."
Principle 3
- Guideline 3.1 - moved "document attributes identify the natural
language of the document" up to required.
- Guideline 3.2 - moved benefits "Summarizing information that is
difficult to understand helps people who do not read well," and
"providing a summary of the visual cues that show relationships between
complex information helps people who do not use visual cues or who have
difficulty using visual cues. For example, people who are completely
blind do not use any visual cues, while people with dyslexia or with low
vision might have difficulty interpreting visual cues," to 3.3.
- Guideline 3.3 and 3.4 - added a level 3 item that refers to lists in
Appendix E, additional notes.
Principle 4
- Guideline 4.1 - Removed, "for Application Programming Interfaces
(API's), programming standards for the language are followed."
- Guideline 4.1 - Removed, "accessibility features and API's are used
when available."
- Guideline 4.2 [was 4.3] - Included proposed
changes for 4.2., moving what was checkpoint 4.3 to 4.2
- Guideline 4.3 [was 4.2] - reworded best practice to "technologies and
features on the required list are available in at least two
independently-developed implementations. (it is preferable that the
technologies used for the implementations have been supported for at
least one prior version of the software)" was, "Technologies and features
on the required list are available in at least two
independently-developed implementations." and removed additional note
that read "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."
- Guideline 4.2 [was 4.2] - reworded best practice item to read "the
interface has been tested using a variety of assistive technologies and
preferably real people with disabilities who use assistive technologies
to determine that those assistive technologies are able to access all
information on the page or hidden within the page," was "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. " and removed editorial note that read "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?"
Appendix A
- removed duplicate definitions for non-text content.
- added termref elements to terms used in document for glossary
linking
- made entries for captions and audio descriptions separate from
definition of media equivalent.
- combined definitions of structure (previously defined in both 1.3 and
2.4).
24 June 2003 (TR) working draft
- Fixed some typos and updated references between checkpoints.
- Checkpoint 4.2 (declare-technology): Edited editorial note to reflect
possibility of deleting checkpoint due to testability and subjectivity
issues.
- Checkpoint 4.2 (declare-technology): Reworded Required Success
Criterion per John
and Cynthia's proposal, mailing
list discussion, and discussion at 19 June telecon.
Front Matter
Guideline 3
- Checkpoint 3.2 (acronym-abbr-def): Moved to Extended section per June 12 meeting and added an
editorial note.
Guideline 4
- Checkpoint 4.2 (declare-technology): Added editorial note addressing
questions about graceful transformation and backward compatibility per June 12 meeting.
- Checkpoint 4.3 (technology-supports-access): Added editorial note about
whether this checkpoint should remain in the draft per June 12 meeting.
General changes applied throughout
- modified headings to include checkpoint numbering.
- added unique id attributes to checkpoints and success criteria
Guideline 1
- Checkpoint 1.2: added editorial note outlining issues and questions
about whether this checkpoint should be core or extended.
Guideline 2
- Checkpoint 2.3: added an editorial note outlining issues and questions
about whether this checkpoint should be core or extended.
Appendix A
- included a glossary list outlining all of the terms and definitions
used in the document.
General changes applied throughout
Guidelines and Checkpoints (reorganization)
This draft incorporated a number of significant changes resulting from the
May
2003 Reorganization Proposal, which reorganized the checkpoints into 4
guidelines in order to provide a clearer organization and to address some key
open issues.
An outline illustrating the major changes in numbering and organization
from the proposal is included below. Numbers in square brackets indicate the
numbering used in drafts prior to the April 29 draft.
Checkpoints preceeded by question marks indicate checkopoints where the group
had not reached consensus regarding core vs. extended.
- Guideline 1: PERCEIVABLE. Make Content Perceivable by Any User
- 1.1 [CORE] All non-text content that can be expressed in words has
a text equivalent of the function or information that the non-text
content was intended to convey. [was 1.1]
- 1.2 [CORE] ?? Synchronized media equivalents are provided for
time-dependent presentations. [was 1.2]
- 1.3 [CORE] Both [information/substance] and structure are separable
from presentation. [was 1.3]
- 1.4 [CORE] All characters and words in the content can be
unambiguously decoded. [was 1.6]
- 1.5 [EXTENDED] Structure has been made perceivable to more people
through presentation(s), positioning, and labels. [was 1.4]
- 1.6 [EXTENDED] Foreground content is easily differentiable from
background for both auditory and visual default presentations. [was
1.5]
- Guideline 2: OPERABLE. Ensure that Interface Elements in the Content
are Operable by Any User
- 2.1 [CORE] All functionality is operable at a minimum through a
keyboard or a keyboard interface. [was 2.1]
- 2.2 [CORE] Users can control any time limits on their reading,
interaction, or responses unless control is not possible due to
nature of real time events or competition. [was 2.2]
- 2.3 [CORE] ?? User can avoid experiencing screen flicker. [was
2.3]
- 2.4 [EXTENDED] Structure and/or alternate navigation mechanisms
have been added to facilitate orientation and movement in content.
[was 3.1 and 3.2]
- 2.5 [EXTENDED] Methods are provided to minimize error and provide
graceful recovery. [was 3.5]
- Guideline 3: UNDERSTANDABLE. Make content and controls understandable
to as many users as possible.
- 3.1 [CORE] Language of content can be programmatically
determined.[was 1.6 partial]
- 3.2 [CORE] ?? The definition of abbreviations and acronyms can be
unambiguously determined. [was 4.3]
- 3.3 [EXTENDED] Content is written to be no more complex than is
necessary and/or supplement with simpler forms of the content. [was
4.1 and 4.2]
- 3.4 [EXTENDED] Layout and behavior of content is consistent or
predictable, but not identical. [was 3.3 and 3.4]
- Guideline 4: ROBUST. Use web technologies that maximize the ability of
the content to work with current and future accessibility technologies
and user agents.
- 4.1 [CORE] Technologies are used according to specification [was
5.1]
- 4.2 [EXTENDED] ?? Technologies that are relied upon by the content
are declared and widely available.[was 5.2]
- 4.3 [EXTENDED] ?? Technologies used for presentation and user
interface support accessibility or alternate versions of the content
are provided which do support accessibility.[was 5.3 and 5.4]
No changes from April 24 draft. Published to Technical Reports page for
public review.
Guideline 1
- Checkpoint 1.5: updated level 3 success criterion and included a
reviewer's note regarding the possibility of including an algorithm that
measures contrast.
General changes applied throughout
- replaced "The following are additional ideas for enhancing a site along
this particular dimension" with "The following are additional ideas for
enhancing content along this particular dimension" (for more consistent
use of "content", "site", and "document")
Front Matter
- changed first sentence under introduction to "This document outlines
design principles for creating accessible Web content." Was "...Web
sites."
- replaced conformance section with a rewrite that outlines the scheme
used in the document, the issues with the scheme, and a link to further
information about current proposals and discussion.
Guideline 1
- Checkpoint 1.2: Multiple revisions resulting from Wendy's
December 2002 Checkpoint 1.2 proposals:
- removed the third level 2 success criterion "if Web content is an
interactive audio-only presentation, the user is provided with the
ability to view only the captions, the captions with the audio, or
both together" per Andi's
proposal. [proposal #5]
- removed the second level 2 success criterion, "captions and Audio
descriptions are provided for all live broadcasts that are
professionally produced" per a suggestion
from Charles. [proposal #8]
- reworded the first success criterion at the minimum level per John,
Gregg and Lee's comments. [proposal #1]
- reworded the exception about real-time, audio-only content (second
success criteria under minimum level). Now reads, "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." Was, " if the Web content is real-time audio-only, if
not time-sensitive (news, emergency, etc.), and not interactive, a
transcript or other non-audio equivalent is sufficient." [proposal
#2]
- added Andi's proposed level 3 success criterion [proposal #3]
- added John's
rewording of definition of audio presentation with GV's note
[proposal #4]
- added John's
revised note regarding single-sense simultaneous actions with GV's
suggested rewording to the benefits section [proposal #5]
- reworded minimum level success criterion 5 [proposal #10]
- incorporated various
editorial suggestions from John. [proposals #1, #3, #8, #9]
- Checkpoint 1.5: multiple edits based on comments
from Judy Harkins.
- added a decibel level for audio contrast (20db).
- reworded example two to say, "There are no sounds or background
music playing behind the speech track or they are more than 20db
down." Was, " There are no sounds or background music playing behind
the narration or they are more than 20db down."
- reworded second bullet under benefits to read, "Background sounds
interfere with the ability of someone with a hearing impairment to
understand speech, and may also interfere with the intelligibility of
the speech to someone who is in an environment with ambient noise."
Was, "Individuals with hearing impairments that limit their ability
to hear all of the frequencies of speech can make out the words from
the sounds they can hear because they are not mixed with residual
sounds from the music."
- Checkpoint 1.5: incorporated a number of proposals
from Andi resulting from comments on the August public draft.
- reworded minimum level success criterion to read, "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." Was, "no text content is presented over
a background picture, color or pattern that seriously interferes with
readability unless the background picture or pattern can be easily
removed." [proposal 1]
- removed second minimum level success criterion, "prepared audio
presentations do not have background sounds that seriously interfere
with foreground auditory content." [proposal 1]
- reworded second level success criterion to read, "when text content
is presented over a background image or pattern, the text is easily
readable when the page is viewed in 256 grayscale." Was, "content
that might create a problem has been run through a simulator for
major types of color blindness and has been found to remain easily
readable"
- revised level 3 audio success criterion to read, "audio content
does not contain background sounds OR the background sounds are at
least 20 db lower than the foreground audio content." Was,
"background sounds are at least ?? db lower than foreground content."
[proposal 4A]
- revised level 3 contrast success criterion to read, "text content
is not presented over a background image or pattern OR the text is
easily readable when the page is viewed in 256 grayscale." Was,
"there are no background pictures or patterns behind foreground
content"
- added new level 3 success criterion [proposal 4B]
- Checkpoint 1.5: edits from 17 April 2003 telecon
- edited example #2 to clarify why audio only appears at the 3rd
level and not at minimum or level 2.
- replaced first level 3 success criteria text "...viewed in 258
grayscale." with "viewed in black and white (no grayscale)."
Guideline 2
- Checkpoint 2.1: revised checkpoint text to read, "Ensure that all of
the functionality is operable at a minimum through a keyboard or keyboard
interface." Was " Ensure that all of the functionality of the content is
operable through character input to the content or user agent." per Feb.
13 telecon discussions.
- Checkpoint 2.1: updated first minimum level success criterion to match
checkpoint text and incorporated Gregg's
suggested revisions.
- Checkpoint 2.1: replaced definition of character input with definition
of keyboard interface
- Checkpoint 2.1: added an example to expand on types of keyboard
operable content
- Checkpoint 2.1: removed the words "or site" from the end of the first
bullet under benefits. Now reads, "Individuals who are blind (and cannot
use pointing devices) can have access to the functionality of the Web
content." Was, "Individuals who are blind (and cannot use pointing
devices) can have access to the functionality of the Web content or
site."
Guideline 3
- First sentence under guideline 3 updated to "Key to effective use of
Web content is the ability to obtain and keep one's and the ability to
efficiently move about the site, document or application." was "Key to
effective use of Web content is the ability to obtain and keep one's
orientation within a document and/or Web site, and the ability to
efficiently move about in the site or document."
Guideline 4
Guideline 5
Appendix
- removed appendix B: information on conformance pulled for
reconsideration. (renumbered other appendices accordingly)
- updated the reviewer's note in Appendix A: Glossary with to reflect
recent Glossary discussions.
General changes applied throughout
- Removed all level 2 requirements for making conformance claims
(deletions applied to level 2 of checkpoints 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 2.3, 3.1,
3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 4.2 and 4.3.)
Front Matter
- Added new W3C copyright information for 2003.
Guideline 1
- Checkpoint 1.1: Removed right arrow image per Wendy's
Proposal (item #1).
- Checkpoint 1.1: Updated Definition of non-text content per Wendy's
Proposal (item #6). Now reads, "Non-text content includes but is not
limited to images, text in raster images, image map regions, animations
(e.g., animated GIFs), ASCII art, images used as list bullets, spacers,
graphical buttons, sounds (played with or without user interaction),
stand-alone audio files, audio tracks of video, and video. Scripts,
applets, and programmatic objects are not covered in this definition and
are covered in checkpoint 5.4." Was, "Non-text contentincludes but is not
limited to images, text in raster images, image map regions, animations
(e.g., animated GIFs), applets and programmatic objects, ASCII art,
scripts that present content, images used as list bullets, spacers,
graphical buttons, sounds (played with or without user interaction),
stand-alone audio files, audio tracks of video, and video."
- Updated Checkpoint 1.1 Example 2 per John
Slatin's Sept. 4 proposal, modified slightly by a suggestion
from Charles McCathieNevile. Now reads, "A bar chart compares how
many widgets were sold in June, July, and August. The short label says,
"Figure one - Sales in June, July and August." The longer description
identifies the type of chart or graph, provides a high-level summary of
the data comparable to that available from the chart or graph, and lists
the data themselves." Was, "A bar chart compares how many shoes were sold
in June, July, and August. The short label says, "Graph of the numbers of
shoes sold in June, July, and August." The longer explanation provides
the data presented in the chart."
- Checkpoint 1.1: Updated Example titles according to the proposed
revisions to Wendy's
Proposal (item #5).
- Checkpoint 1.1: item 2 under benefits updated according to proposed
revisions. Was, "Individuals who are deaf, are hard of hearing or who
are having trouble understanding the audio information for any reason can
read the text presentation or have it translated and presented as sign
language." Now Reads, "Individuals who are deaf, are hard of hearing or
who are having trouble understanding the audio information for any reason
can read the text presentation or have it translated and presented as
sign language by their assistive technology."
- Checkpoint 1.5: Reintroduced question marks for the db level and
included a reviewers note stating that the exact decibel level has not
yet been determined
- Checkpoint 1.6: added missing term class to "Natural Languages"
Guideline 4
- Checkpoint 4.2: Removed requirement for making conformance claims
(Level 3).
Guideline 5
- Checkpoint 5.2: Added missing definition header and term class.
General changes applied throughout
- For each level 2 success criterion of the form:
There is a statement published on the site asserting that
author(s)/other(s) have reviewed the content and [found it to meet
certain qualitative requirements].
two success criteria have been substituted, the first requiring a review
to have taken place, and the second requiring that a conformance claim be
associated with the content that asserts an appropriate level of
conformance (i.e., level 2, or where applicable, level 3).
Introduction
- Conformance: Added reference to Appendix B.
Guideline 3
- Checkpoint 3.2: Moved into guideline 1 to become checkpoint 1.4; other
checkpoints under guidelines 1 and 3, respectively, renumbered
accordingly.
Guideline 5
- Checkpoint 5.2: Rewritten to substitute the notion of a "required" list
of technologies and features for the concept of a "user-agent baseline";
added level 2 success criteria.
Appendix B
- New appendix added to explain the three conformance levels and the
notion of testable success criteria; other appendices renamed
accordingly.
Introduction
- Status of this document, paragraph 4: Currently reads, "The Working
Group welcomes comments on this document at w3c-wai-gl@w3.org. The
archives for this list are publicly available." Was "Please send comments
on this document to w3c-wai-gl@w3.org. The archives for this list are
publicly available."
- Status of this document, paragraph 5: Added, "Patent disclosures
relevant to this specification may be found on the WCAG Working Group's
patent disclosure page in conformance with W3C policy."
- Status of this document, paragraph 6: Added, "This document has been
produced as part of the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). The goals
of the WCAG WG are discussed in the Working Group charter. The WCAG WG is
part of the WAI Technical Activity."
- How to read this document: Changed tense for layers 2 and 3 since
checklists and techniques documents do not yet exist.
- Priorities and techniques, second paragraph: Now reads, "This Working
Draft of WCAG 2.0 is a follow-on and evolution of WCAG 1.0 and reflects
feedback received since the publication of WCAG 1.0 in May 1999." Was
"Version 2.0 of the WCAG is a follow-on and evolution of WCAG 1.0 and
reflects feedback received since the publication of WCAG 1.0 in May
1999."
- Priorities and techniques, third paragraph: Now reads, "The Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines Working Group is working carefully to enable
organizations and individuals that are currently using WCAG 1.0 (which
remains stable and referenceable at this time) to ensure that they will
eventually be able to make a smooth transition to WCAG 2.0. To understand
how this eventual transition would be facilitated, please refer to the
(draft) Checkpoint Mapping Between WCAG 1.0 and the WCAG 2.0 Working
Draft for more detail on current correspondences." Was, "The Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines Working Group is working carefully to enable
organizations and individuals that have adopted WCAG 1.0 in the past to
make a smooth transition to WCAG 2.0. To facilitate this transition,
please refer to the Checkpoint Mapping Between WCAG 1.0 and the WCAG 2.0
Working Draft for more detail on current correspondences."
Guideline 4
- Checkpoint 4.3, benefits, item 2: Now reads, "…For example,
people who are completely blind do not use any visual cues, while people
with dyslexia or with low vision might have difficulty interpreting
visual cues." (added the word "completely")
Guideline 5
- Checkpoint 5.1: Expanded acronyms DTD and API where they first occur in
success criteria
General changes applied throughout
- References to "WCAG 2.0" were changed to "WCAG 2.0 Working Draft" where
appropriate.
- All occurrences of "web" are now "Web" (capitalization)
- All occurrences of "technology specific" have been replaced by
"technology-specific" (hyphenation)
- Technology Acronyms have been expanded in the Bottom Layer section
under How to Read this Document.
- Success criteria are now all lower case
- All instances of "ex." have been replaced with "e.g."
- Occurrences of "AT" have been expanded to assistive technology
- Benefits sections have been changed to bulleted lists throughout.(see
below)
Introduction
- The Audience section now reads "…while still retaining the
accuracy and clarity needed in a technical specification." Was
"…while still retaining the accuracy and clarity needed in at
technical guideline."
Guideline 1
- Checkpoint 1.1, example 2: The widgets example now refers to shoes
- Checkpoint 1.1, example 5: The Beethoven reference is now the Vienna
Philharmonic Orchestra.
- Checkpoint 1.2, example 3: changed clown slipping on a banana to
pantomime climbing a ladder
- Checkpoint 1.2, example 1: changed alien to puppy and candy to
crumbs
- Checkpoint 1.4, example 2: changed acronym "RERC" to "W3C"
Guideline 3
- Checkpoint 3.5 Benefits: Replaced benefits paragraph with:
- Individuals who are unable to detect extreme changes in context or
may not realize that the context has changed are less likely to
become disoriented while navigating a site. This applies to people in
the following ways:
- Individuals who are blind or have low vision may have
difficulty knowing when a visual context change, such as a new
window popping up, has occurred. In this case, warning users of
context changes in advance minimizes confusion when the user
discovers that the back button no longer behaves as expected.
- Using captions to note changes in speaker is beneficial for
individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing and who may be unable
to discern changes in speaker for audio-only presentations.
- Some individuals with low vision, with dyslexia and who
have difficulty interpreting visual cues may benefit from
additional cues in order to detect extreme changes in
context.
Note: Providing consistent and predictable responses to user
actions is important feedback for the user. This lets them know
that your site is working properly and encourages them to
continue interacting with the content. When the user receives an
unexpected response, they might conclude that something is wrong
or broken. Some people might get so confused they will not be
able to use your site.
- Checkpoint 3.5 Benefits: Additional text from the benefits section in
the last draft related to user actions and responses was moved to the
definitions section and reworded as follows:
- Common user actions include:
- mouse movements
- key activation
- link selection
- use of browser navigation buttons (e.g. back and forward)
- opening new browser windows
- Common responses to user actions include:
- loading a new page
- exposing/concealing content based on mouse position or keyboard
focus
- displaying the contents of a menu (auditorally or visually)
- displaying pop-up menus or windows
- submitting a form
It is important that responses to user actions be predictable and
sensible to the end user and that interactions are consistent, both
throughout the site and with commonly used interaction metaphors used
throughout the Web
Guideline 4
- Checkpoint 4.2, example 2: changed Mt. Saint Helens to Mt. Pinatubo and
updated the date of the last eruption accordingly.
- Checkpoint 4.2, example 1: example changed from snowboarding example to
soccer
- Checkpoint 4.2, example 3: changed soda pop to bicycle
- Checkpoint 4.2, example 5: changed Jazz to music
Guideline 5
- Checkpoint 5.3 Benefits: Replaced benefits paragraph with:
- Authors who utilize technologies designed to support accessibility
will:
- encounter fewer challenges when implementing these
guidelines
- avoid the need to create custom solutions and workarounds to
address accessibility concerns
- avoid the need to provide accessible alternate versions for
content rendered in a technology that does not fully address
these guidelines
- Checkpoint 5.4 Benefits: Replace benefits paragraph with:
- Individuals who rely on assistive technologies to access the Web
will be able interact with the content.
- Individuals who access the Web with older technologies or
alternative browsing devices such as PDAs and cell phones also
benefit from the inclusion of accessible alternatives to custom
user interfaces.
General changes applied throughout
Introduction
- How to read this document: Changed title for second layer to
"Technology Specific Checklists" was "Technology Specific Guidelines"
- How to read this document, Technology Specific Checklists, paragraph 1:
Changed to, "In addition to the general guidelines, there are a series of
Technology Specific Checklist documents. These documents provide
information on what is required when using different technologies in
order to meet the WCAG 2.0 access guidelines." was "In addition to the
general guidelines, there are a series of Technology Specific Guidelines
documents. These documents provide information on what is required when
using different technologies in order to meet the WCAG 2.0 access
guidelines. These documents are also normative."
- How to read this document, Bottom Layer, paragraph 1: changed to "The
Techniques Documents are code examples, screen shots, and other
information specific to a technology. These documents are non-normative.
They contain different strategies for meeting the requirements as well as
the current preferred approaches where they exist. Examples include: "
was "In separate Techniques Documents are code examples, screen shots,
and other information specific to a technology. These documents are
non-normative and do not contain requirements. Rather they contain
different strategies for meeting the requirements as well as the current
preferred approaches where they exist. Examples include:"
- How to read this document, techniques document list: Removed "PDF
Techniques"
- Conformance: Added "If they meet all of the criteria for level 2 and
some but not all of the criteria for Level 3 then can claim conformance
at Level 2+." to list of ways to claim conformance beyond minimum.
Guideline 2
- Checkpoint 2.1: Changed to, "Ensure that all of the functionality of
the content is operable through character input to the content or user
agent." was, "All of the functionality of the content is operable through
character input to the content or user agent."
Guideline 4
- Checkpoint 4.1: labeled all success criteria under this checkpoint
"still under construction" and posted the following reviewer's note:
"Reviewer's Note: This item is under discussion. There is consensus for
the existence of the checkpoint but not for the form of the success
criteria. We do not therefore have something for the draft at this time.
There is a list below of items that are being explored for inclusion
either as success criteria or as Advisory Recommendations. We are also
compilling a longer list (approx 50 items) of different ideas that relate
to this checkpoint.
This checkpoint is very difficult and the group is wrestling with
several problems. (1) It is very difficult to determine what makes
writing clear and simple for all topics. (2) Some content is derived from
other sources and is copyrighted so it cannot be altered. (3) Some
materials or topics cannot be communicated accurately in simple language.
(4) sometimes the form is specific to the intent, (poetry, exposition )
(5) Since some people can not understand the content no matter how simply
it is written, it is not possible to make any content accessible to
everyone. Therefore, we are having difficulty finding specific objective
criteria that could be applied across all types of content and sites.
Comments, suggestions and contributions to the discusssion and work on
this topic are also solicited. Refer to the issues list for more
information.
General changes applied throughout
- capitalized all occurrences of "Web" (per W3C Style Guide)
- changed all success criteria to lower case for consistency throughout
draft
- changed all occurrences of Braille to braille (per W3C Style Guide)
- Removed issues that were included within the document and changed
issues class into reviewer’s note (revnote) class. Issues that
were removed will be added to an updated issues list.
Introduction
- Table of Contents – Guideline 3 – duplicate text
removed.
- 5 Magic words - Perceivable, Operable, Navigable, Understandable,
Robust (updated appropriate references)
- How to read this document, top layer, item #3 – fixed typo and
updated reference to number of checkpoints
- Alternate wording proposed for Checkpoint 4.3 removed
- Under Audience, added a link to Education and Outreach.
- Abstract, third sentence: now says, "It has the same aim: to explain
what makes Web content accessible to people with disabilities and to
define target levels of accessibility." was "It has the same aim: explain
how to make Web content accessible to people with disabilities."
- Status, first paragraph, second sentence: now says "This draft is not
yet based on consensus of the WCAG Working Group nor has it gone through
W3C process." was "This draft is not based on consensus of the WCAG
Working Group nor has it gone through W3C process."
- Purpose, first paragraph, last sentence: now says "By making content
accessible to a variety of devices, that content will also be accessible
to people in a variety of situations." was "By making content accessible
to a variety of devices, the content is now accessible to people in a
variety of situations."
- How to read this document, top layer, item 5: now reads, "An appendix
containing definitions, refererences and other supporting information."
was "An appendix containing definitions and other support
information."
- Priorities and Techniques, third paragraph, first sentence: now reads,
"The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group is working
carefully to enable organizations and individuals that have adopted WCAG
1.0 in the past to make a smooth transition to WCAG 2.0. To facilitate
this transition, please refer to the Checkpoint Mapping Between WCAG 1.0
and WCAG 2.0 Working Draft for more detail on current correspondences."
was "The WCAG Working Group is proceeding carefully to minimize
substantial differences between the WCAG 1.0 Recommendation and the WCAG
2.0 Working Draft. Refer to the Checkpoint Mapping Between WCAG 1.0 and
WCAG 2.0 Working Draft for more detail on current correspondences.
- Designing Accessible Web Content, last sentence deleted: Links to the
Education and Outreach Group were included inline. Was, "Readers are
therefore referred to the Education and Outreach group of the Web
Accessibility Initiative. Further information can be found at
www.w3.org/wai/."
Guideline 1
- Checkpoint 1.2, minimum level, 1st bullet: now reads, "The audio
description should 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). was "The audio description should
include all significant visual information in scenes, actions and events
(that can't be perceived from the sound track) is provided 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."
- Checkpoint 1.3 – Two new examples added to informative
section.
- Checkpoint 1.4 – added informative section (previous draft had
none)
- Added Checkpoint 1.5: "Provide information needed for unambiguous
decoding of the characters and words in the content."
Guideline 2
- Checkpoint 2.1, benefits – changed "functionality of the
product" to "functionality of the Web Content or site."
- Checkpoint 2.2, Benefits now reads, "People with reading disabilities,
cognitive disabilities, and learning disabilities often need additional
time to read and comprehend written text. was "People with reading
disabilities, cognitive disabilities, and learning disabilities often
need longer than most people to read and comprehend written text."
- Checkpoint 2.1 changed to, "All of the functionality of the content is
operable through character input to the content or user agent." was
"Provide keyboard access to all functionality of the content."
- Checkpoint 2.2, definition of a competitive activity now reads, "A
competitive activity is an activity where timing is an essential part of
the design of the activity. Removal of the time element would change the
performance of the participants. Versions of the activity (e.g. test)
that have no time basis or time limits might be preferred and may be
required for some venues but this would require a complete redesign of
the activity (e.g. test) and may change the character and validation
methodology and would therefore not fall under these guidelines." was "A
competitive activity is an activity where timing is an essential part of
the design of the activity. Removal of the time element would change the
performance of the participants. Activities that have no time basis or
time limits might be preferred and may be required for some venues but
this would require a complete redesign of the activity or test and would
therefore fall under guidelines."
- Checkpoint 2.3, minimum level, success criteria 1, item a now reads,
"content was not designed to flicker (or flash) in the range of 3 to 49
Hz." was "animation or other content does not visibly or purposely
flicker between 3 and 49 Hz."
Guideline 3
- Guideline 3 - Redundant text removed
- Checkpoint 3.2 Example 1 began "Identifying chapters in the title of a
chapter…" and now reads "Identifying chapters in the structure of
a document…"
- Checkpoint 3.4 Benefits – changed end of paragraph 1 sentence
from "navigate, orient themselves." To "navigate and orient
themselves."
- Checkpoint 3.6, level 3, item #1 – "directly generate the text"
to "directly generate input text" (wasn’t clear what "the"
referred to)
- Checkpoint 3.2, level 2 success criteria: now reads, "The structural
emphases are chosen to be distinct for different major display types
(e.g. black and white, small display, mono audio playback)" was "(??
should we have something in level 2 about providing more than one type of
structural emphasis to match different display technologies)"
Guideline 4
- Checkpoint 4.3, Minimum Level, Item 1 – wording simplified from
"Acronyms and Abbreviations are defined the first time they appear in
text." to "Acronyms and Abbreviations are defined the first time they
appear." (wasn’t clear if it meant define them using text or
define them the first time they appear in the text.)
- Checkpoint 4.4 was deleted (subsumed by 1.5)
Guideline 5
- Cleaned up formatting and incorporated latest proposals.
Appendix
- Appendix A: slightly reworded issue so that it reads as a reviewer's
note.
- Appendix A: updated gl.xsl to automatically include a simple list of
the terms defined in the document. Once the document settles down and the
issue on what terms need to go in is resolved, we can insert other terms
(if necessary) and include the definitions in their entirety.
- Appendix B: simplified such that, rather than maintaining two lists of
names while the document evolves, the contributors section now points
directly to the particpants
page.
- Appendix C, improvements section: updated to reflect goals from the requirements document. Added link to
requirements as well.
- Appendix D: updated so that it reads as a reviewer's note.
This draft incorporated a number of significant changes resulting from the
March
2002 WCAG 2 Restructuring Proposal, which reorganized the checkpoints
into 5 guidelines in order to provide a clearer organization and to address
some key open issues.
An outline illustrating the major changes in numbering and organization
from the restructuring proposal is included below. Numbers in square brackets
indicate the numbering used in drafts prior to the April 24 version. Numbers
followed by the letter "A" indicate changes in the checkpoint text.
- Guideline 1 - Perceivable. Ensure that all content can be presented in
form(s) that can be perceived by any user - except those aspects of the
content that cannot be expressed in words.
- Checkpoint 1.1 Provide a text equivalent for all aspects of
non-text content that can be expressed in words.
- Checkpoint 1.2 Provide synchronized media equivalents for
time-dependent presentations.
- Checkpoint 1.3 [1.5] Make all content and structure available
independently of presentation.
- Guideline 2 - Operable. Ensure that the interface elements in the
content are operable by any user.
- Checkpoint 2.1 [2.5] Provide keyboard access to all functionality
of the content.
- Checkpoint 2.2 [2.4] Allow users to control any time limits on
their response or interaction times unless control is not possible
due to nature of real-time events or competition.
- Checkpoint 2.3 [2.6] Avoid causing the screen to flicker.
- Guideline 3 - Orientation/Navigation. Facilitate content orientation
and navigation
- Checkpoint 3.1 [1.3A] Provide structure within content.
- Checkpoint 3.2 [3.2] Emphasize structure through presentation(s),
positioning, and labels.
- Checkpoint 3.3 [2.1] Provide multiple methods to explore site
contents.
- Checkpoint 3.4 [3.1] Use Consistent But Not Necessarily Identical
Presentation
- Checkpoint 3.5 [2.2] Provide consistent and predictable responses
to user actions.
- Checkpoint 3.6 [2.3] Either give users control of mechanisms that
cause extreme changes in context or warn them of pending changes.
- Guideline 4 - Comprehension. Make it as easy as possible to understand
the content and controls.
- Checkpoint 4.1 [3.3] Write as clearly and simply as is appropriate
for the content.
- Checkpoint 4.2 [3.4] Supplement text with non-text content.
- Checkpoint 4.3 [3.5] Annotate complex, abbreviated, or unfamiliar
information with summaries and definitions.
- Checkpoint 4.4 [1.4] Identify the primary natural language of text
and text equivalents and all changes in natural language.
- Guideline 5 - Cross-cutting issues. Design content to maximize
compatibility with different presentation, operation and interpretation
technologies.
- Checkpoint 5.1 [4.2] Use technologies according to
specification.
- Checkpoint 5.2 [4.4] Ensure that content remains usable when
technologies that modify default user agent processing or behavior
are turned off or not supported.
- Checkpoint 5.3 [4.1A] Choose technologies that support
interoperability and compatibility.
- Checkpoint 5.4 [4.3A] Ensure that user interfaces are accessible or
provide an accessible alternative.
General Changes applied throughout
- Divided Success Criteria into levels as follows:
- You will have successfully met Checkpoint XX at the Minimum Level
if:
- You will have successfully met Checkpoint XX at Level 2 if:
- You will have successfully met Checkpoint XX at Level 3 if:
- The following are additional ideas for enhancing a site along this
particular dimension:
Introduction
The October 26, 2001 draft integrated the August 2001 public working draft
with a number of the issues that had been maintained in the issues list. See
Updated
guidelines with open issues incorporated for more details.
Introductions
- From Purpose: deleted the following question, "Have you ever read the
captions on a TV in a store because the background noise made it
difficult to hear?"
- Purpose: First sentence now reads, "This document outlines design
principles for accessible Web sites" got rid of "attractive and usable"
Issue: how to address "usable" later in the intro?
- Purpose: "When following the guidelines, attempt to reach" replaced "In
following the guidelines, attempt to reach "
- "How to Read.." - "It takes a variety of people to make a Web site; it
will take a variety of people to make it accessible." replaces "It takes
a variety of people to make a Web site, therefore it will take a variety
of people to make it accessible. "
- In How to Read: At the top layer are the most general concepts, and at
the bottom layer are the most specific. replaces "At the top layer is the
most general of the concepts the bottom layer is the most specific of the
concepts."
- In "Top layer.." made all of the Guidelines end w/period. Also made
them the same throughout the doc. Spelled out "four" guidelines.
- Bottom layer: technology-specific hyphenated.
- Overview of design principles: usably typo fixed with "usable."
- Removed pointer to Paul's limitations section since is an open issue.
Note to reviewers remains.
Guideline 1
- Guideline 1 intro: replaced first two paragraphs with:
We adjust objects in our environment to meet our needs and use tools
to help us do things we cannot do on our own. Both in real life and on
the Web, some people rely on these adjustments to work, to contribute to
society, and to enjoy life. One person uses a stepladder to reach an
object on a high shelf. Another uses a magnifying glass to read small
print. A third uses captions to understand what a television news
announcer is saying.
Here are some examples from the World Wide Web:
- A person away from home might use a cell phone to check sports
scores.
- A person who cannot see text might use a screen reader to read the
text aloud.
- A person without a mouse might use a keyboard to navigate a web
page.
- Checkpoint 1.2: "equivalents with time-dependent" should be
"equivalents for time-dependent"
- Checkpoint 1.3: a replaces "the" in play example
- Checkpoint 1.4, example 1: french phrases are italicized.
- Checkpoint 1.5, success criteria #2: now says "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." was "the markup or data model
representing the structure of the content is logically separated from the
presentation."
Guideline 2
- Guideline 2 intro: got rid of the examples. all that is left: We
interact with objects and events in our environment in different ways
based on our abilities and often determined by the situation in which we
find ourselves.
Guideline 3
- intro: deleted examples. all that is left is the 2nd paragraph: We each
gain knowledge in different ways. Some people read something and
understand, others have to experience it, while others need only to see
something. To help people understand the information you are presenting,
consider the various ways that people learn. Keep in mind the variety of
backgrounds and experiences people will bring to your site. Use language,
illustrations, and concepts that they are likely to know. Highlight the
differences and similarities between concepts. A delicate balance is
needed in design to make this work well.
- Checkpoint 3.3: dropped the words "possible" and "site's" it now says:
Write as clearly and simply as is appropriate for the content.
- Checkpoint 3.4: added "Note" to cautionary quote in Benefits.
Guideline 4
- 4.4, Example 2, replaced "with or without ..." with "etc"
- 4.4, Example 3, "provide" -> "provides"
- 4.4, Example 3: unclear example, removed
General changes applied throughout
- Numbered all Success Criteria rather than bullets.
- The following success criteria were rewritten in declarative form: 1.3,
1.4, 1.5, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 3.2, 3.3, 3.5, 4.2.
- Issue: Most W3C specs seem to only identify that which
is informative and assume the rest normative. There usually isn't much
that is informative. Each checkpoint text and success criteria is marked
with div class="normative" so that we could apply a style sheet to them
later. Could also mark definitions, examples, and benefits and
informative and perhaps apply a style to them. This info is in the intro,
and until we find an elegant way, we left it as is.
- Prefixed each checkpoint with the word "checkpoint" (per Paul's
suggestion).
- Throughout all checkpoints: Moved the success criteria after the
checkpoint text. Marked up the checkpoint and success criteria with a div
with class "normative."
- Added 2 paragraphs following each Guideline text. Moved the paragraphs
from the Design Overview to Guideline 1 and 3. The text for Guidelines 2
and 4 is new. Left the rest of the discussion in the Design Overview.
Perhaps this is the basis for the Executive Summary?
- Have not divided the
guidelines up into separate pages as PB has shown, although this
should happen. Most W3C specs now do this: with the first page only
containing front matter and an abbreviated TOC. Each chapter then exists
as a separate "page" with links between. WC really likes PB's text links
at the top of each page. Issue:Need agreement to do this
in next draft.
- Added an Appendix D with the note: Note to Reviewers: links within the
document will be turned into references and the links to those documents
will be listed here as references. They are inline for the time
being.
- Got rid of the @@'s. Some replaced with notes to reviewers, others
deleted (inconsequential notes that were not needed).
- Added "informative" to benefits, definitions, and examples
headings.
- Notes were added to definition placeholders in checkpoints: 1.1 and 3.4
(Non-text content), 1.3 (data model), 1.5 (content, presentation). The
1.1 and 3.4 definitions of non-text content were the same. We used the
definition from 1.1 since it was not circular like the 3.4
definition.
Introduction
- Commented out the use of the [PROPOSED] style to mark significant
changes. Will use this again in internal working drafts.
- Put the real (full) 4 design principles in place of the 4 topic headers
[presentation, interaction, comprehension, and technology
considerations]
- Made the @@ under "scope" a note to reviewers that reads: "Note to
reviewers: it has been proposed to include a discussion of accessibility
vs usability and how we define our scope. Refer tothe Limitations section
in Paul's intro."
- Deleted link to CSS techs from the section "Bottom layer - Technology
specific information"
- Overview of Design Principles significantly reworded and reworked.
Guideline 1
- in 1.1 changed part of the third criteria from "a label identifying the
content will suffice" with "a label identifying the content is
provided"
- in 1.1 moved the following sentence from the definition to a note under
the 2nd success criteria: 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.
- 1.1 under the definition of captions "equivalents" was replaced with
"text equivalents."
- Reworded 1.2 to "Provide synchronized media
equivalents with time-dependent presentations." from "Synchronize
media equivalents with time-dependent
presentations." and modified the definition of "media equivalents" based
on the 9
August 2001 telecon.
- 1.3 deleted the 2nd example in the definition "A theatrical play is
divided into scenes and acts. The curtain lowering, characters leaving
the stage, or a short burst of music are a few ways to highlight changes
in context during a play." It was not tied well to the definition of
logical structure and how those things were provided.
- 1.4: added note below checkpoint: Note to reviewers: Use of the word
"natural" is under discussion. Suggestions are welcome.
- 1.4 success criteria reworded with some reformatting to "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." from "Changes in language
will be identified at the level the changes occur. 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. "
- Deleted the qualifier "To the extent that the technology allows (see
checkpoint solutions)" from the 2nd point in success criteria on
checkpoint 1.5.
- 1.5 example 1 was clarified to: "A document is marked up with headings,
paragraphs and other structural features. It is presented visually in
three columns. The markup that creates the columns is separate from the
markup that contains the content of the columns." from "A document is
layed out in multiple columns, but the markup that creates the columns is
separate from the markup that contains the content of the columns."
Guideline 2
- 2.1 - deleted from success criteria since covered by 2.7. "Search
functions report errors and may attempt to correct mistakes in user
input. (refer to checkpoint 2.7)"
- Issue: The original wording of 2.1 was "Provide more
than one path or method to find content." Jason has suggested: "Provide
at least one site navigation mechanism." and Gregg countered, "Provide
multiple site navigation mechanisms". These all carry the same issues.
We've used Gregg's text but also included a note to reviewer's that says,
"Note to reviewers: This success criteria is not easily testable. We have
also discussed complex sites and content versus small sites. For example,
WCAG 1.0 is one "page" but it needs several navigation mechanisms.
Suggestions and feedback are encouraged." Also added a note right after
the checkpoint "Note to reviewers: We are currently discussing the scope
of this checkpoint and what is required. Does providing multiple site
navigation mechanisms increase accessibility or are we trying to get at
something else? Refer to the benefits for the issue we are trying to
tackle. Suggestions are encouraged. How do we set limits for when to
apply this checkpoint? If a site consists of only 5 pages, a site map map
might look exactly like the home page. "
- 2.3 added the phrase "or so they can be prepared for the change" to the
end of criteria #2 so it reads "....or identify extreme changes in
context before they occur so the user may determine if they wish to
proceed or so they can be prepared for the change.
- 2.3 reworded to "Checkpoint 2.3 Give users control of mechanisms that
cause extreme changes in context or warn them of pending changes." from
"Checkpoint 2.3 Either give users control of mechanisms that cause
extreme changes in context."
- 2.4 criteria - added a 4th criteria "the user is given as much time as
possible." In order to have the criteria match the checkpoint.
- 2.4 example 1 changed to read "Client-side scripting is used to create
blinking text. The user can deactivate the use of scripting in his or her
browser or override the use of scripts with a user style sheet." from
"Client-side scripting is used to create blinking text. The user can
deactivate the use of scripting in his or her browser or override the use
of scripts with a user style sheet." since this was not a generic use of
style sheets, only applied to CSS. wanted to remain technology
agnostic.
- Deleted the following phrase from 2.5 since it was redundant with the
rest of the success criteria and covered in the benefits: You will have
successfully used device-independent event handlers if the user can
interact with your application through the keyboard only or in
conjunction with a mouse.
- 2.5 the following note added beneath success criteria: Note to
reviewers: In criterion 2, one of the device-specific event handlers must
be encoding (e.g., keyboard) although it has been noted that encoding
device handlers do not appear to be usable in lieu of direct manipulation
(e.g., mouse) in those cases where the action or the result can not be
expressed in words. Our challenge is to express this simply. Feedback is
encouraged.
- Added the following as success criteria for 2.6: content does not
flicker between 4 and 49 Hz.
- Added the following note to checkpoint 2.7 (input errors): Note to
reviewers: This is a new checkpoint that is being explored. It does not
have full support of the working group. We know that spelling mistakes
are a serious issue for people with writing disabilities and dyslexia. We
have generalized this checkpoint to include all input errors but
highlight spelling mistakes. Are there other input errors we should
highlight? Are there other success criteria we can define? If not, then
we will not use the general case and make this specific to spelling
errors.
- Added an example to checkpoint 2.7. This is based on the original text
from this checkpoint from several versions ago (when it was just a
checkpoint about search engines).
- Issue:Charles' comments about meta data (as success
criteria for 2.1) are very important but since they deal with
machine-generated/readable searches, is that success criteria for 2.1 or
2.7? or does it deal with 1.3 - using markup and database to provide
structure...and something more. semantics. This is the other issue Jason
has brought up before that we have not captured well.
Guideline 3
- 3.1 success criteria now reads: "items with similar function have a
similar presentation." instead of "have applied a similar presentation
for items with similar function throughout the Web site and" Web site was
dropped so that this would apply more widely.
- 3.2 success criteria now reads:
- a unique style is created for each structural element
Note: styles include differences in size, appearance, position and
may be subtly distinct.where appropriate,
- differences in structure are labeled,
- where possible, these differences are highlighted in styles for a
variety of output media including large screen, small screen, speech,
braille, tty, etc.
instead of
- create a unique style for each structural element
- styles may be subtly distinct
- styles include differences in size, appearance, position
- where appropriate, differences in structure have been labeled
- where possible, these differences are highlighted in styles for a
variety of output media including large screen, small screen, speech,
braille, tty, etc. "
- Corrected the grammar in 3.3 from "3.3 Write as simple as possible yet
appropriate for site's content. " to "3.3 Write as clearly and simply as
is possible and appropriate for the site's content. . "
- Issue:success criterion 1 should read "the intended
audience of the content has been identified".
- Checkpoint 3.4: Moved the success criteria to examples, and rewrote
them as examples. Under success criteria included the note: Note to
reviewers: This item is under discussion and does not have consensus. We
do not have something acceptable for the draft at this time. Comments and
suggestions are welcome. Refer to the issues list for more
information.
- 3.5 added following note to end of success criteria: "Note to
reviewers: These success criteria are incomplete and need work. Comments
are solicited." Issue: This second criterion seems to be
an example rather than criteria.
- Added word "abbreviated" to Checkpoint 3.5 so that it now reads: "3.5:
Annotate complex, abbreviated, or specialized information with summaries
and definitions " (resolved at 2 August 2001 telecon)
- 3.5 first paragraph of benefits now reads "Summarizing information that
is difficult to understand helps people who do not read well. Providing a
summary of the visual cues that show relationships between complex
information helps people who do not use visual cues or who have
difficulty using visual cues. For example, people who are blind do not
use any visual cues, while people with dyslexia or people with low vision
might have difficulty interpreting visual cues." from ""
Guideline 4
- 4.1 added following note to end of success criteria: Note to reviewers:
These success criteria are incomplete and need work. Comments are
solicited.
- Added the following note to checkpoint 4.2 "Note to reviewers: Please
help us identify accessibility issues with transport protocols so that we
can properly address them in this checkpoint. Our current thinking is
that these issues might be server-side issues rather than issues with the
content." (resolved at the 2 August telecon)
- 4.3 benefits were success criteria, benefits added as follows "Asking
someone to access your Web site without their assistive technology is
like asking someone to access a building without their wheelchair.
Assistive technologies are an essential part of the lives of many people
with disabilities."
- 4.4 the success criteria for 4.4 were actually examples, while the
benefits were actually success criteria. Therefore the benefits moved up
to success criteria, the previous success criteria were expanded into
examples. Too many changes to list here.
- 4.4 following note added after checkpoint text: Note to reviewers: The
use of the word "default" is under discussion. Suggestions are
welcome.
- Reworded 4.4 to read: "Ensure that content remains usable when
technologies that modify default user agent processing or behavior are
turned off or not supported." from "Design content so that when
presentation effects are turned off or not supported the content is still
usable."
- Issue: Cynthia cautioned against using "default
presentation". However, the following article supports this use of
default. From
XML content to HTML display. We should also be in agreement with
UAAG, but it's offline so we can't determine if we are.
These edits continue to address discussions within the working group since
the 28 March 2001 version. The 26 July 2001 version did not have updates to
checkpoints 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4. This draft updates those, as
well as incorporates discussion on checkpoint 2.1 from the 26 July 2001
telecon on the 26 July 2001 working draft.
Throughout
- deleted "non-normative" from example headings. added note about
normative vs non-normative to intro. see point 3 in intro (next
section).
Introduction
I made these changes before receiving Paul's
latest work. I will incorporate that asap, although with a brief skim I
think we made some similar changes.
- I moved the sections of the introduction around. I moved "Design
Principles" from the Intro and put it afterwards as its own section. I
think this is becoming the Executive summary.
- Added a section "How to read this document" (per Charles' suggestion)
that combined the previous scope section. Part of scope was also moved up
to Purpose. Audience was subsumed into "How to read..." This section also
describes which pieces of a checkpoint are normative are not. This should
also be echoed in a conformance section once one exists.
- A place holder still exists for Scope and the accessibility vs
usability issue that Paul raised in his proposed intro.
Guideline 2
- Checkpoint 2.1
- Changed text from "2.1 Provide more than one path or method to find
content. " to "2.1 Handle input errors, such as misspellings."
- Replaced benefit text. Was "One of the most basic features of the
Web is to interact with information. The most common form of
interaction is navigating - to make your way through Web space to
find a particular story, article, person, etc. Providing more than
one navigation method helps users choose the most comfortable path or
style of navigation." Now is " "
- changed the success criteria to "check for misspelled words and
suggest correct spellings when text entry is required.where possible,
let the user select from a list of options rather than generate
text."
Guideline 3
- Checkpoint 3.4
- deleted the non-normative example since it didn't help illustrate
the idea, per
Sean's suggestion.
- edited the entire checkpoint based on feedback from Sean, Charles,
Anne, and the rest of the thread about this checkpoint. Refer to my
proposal to the list on 30 July 2001.
- included a quote from Bailey's book "Human Performance
Engineering." Really good chapters on designing both documentation
and designing human-computer interfaces.
- Note that there are several possible ways to successfully meet the
checkpoint. all of which have a "link to other content" as a
possibility. This is to help point people to information that will
help them (as Anne has raised) while also considering the page
clutter and usability issues that many have raised.
- Major change (possible issues): Combined 3.5
(Summarize complex information.) and 3.6 Define key terms, abbreviations,
acronyms, and specialized language.) into a new 3.5: Annotate complex or
unfamiliar information with summaries and definitions. Might not be the
best combination, but they seemed pretty similar. It is similar to 3.4 in
that 3.4 you supplement text with non-text. Here you supplement text with
text. <grin/>
- Major change: deleted 3.7 (Divide information into
smaller, more manageable units.) We already say earlier, "1.3 Use markup
or a data model to provide the logical structure of content." and
"3.2 Emphasize structure through presentation, positioning, and labels."
I could not think of anything that had to be separated out into its own
checkpoint. I moved the user interface example to 1.3, the other 2
examples were already there.
- Issue:The only thing from 3.7 that is not included is,
"Limiting each paragraph to one main idea will help people process the
information." Which I think might be more of a technique or success
criteria. Perhaps goes better with writing simply and clearly.
Guideline 4
- Checkpoint 4.1 - included the list we had before as the success
criteria, but think this should eventually include the XML GL checkpoint
(once they stabalize).
- Issue: We still do not have a good solution for how to
include Adam's point about what he calls "content modes." could someone
help with some wording? Al
suggested "Follow usage that is compatible with assitive tranforms."
but Adam
did not feel this worked. He suggests "content modes" since it does
not have a previous meaning. What about "Use technologies that support
the use of these guidelines" (Tom's proposal). This also might relate to
the natural language checkpoint. I've
asked Adam to take a look at these in the new draft.
- Issue: Checkpoint 4.2 - success criteria for protocols
- as in HTTP? SOAP? XMLP? What are the issues? Also, the API criteria is
weak, but what else can we do? Jason's success criteria only referred to
markup languages, in my mind. Perhaps they can be applied to protocols as
well.
- Issue: Checkpoints 4.2 and 4.3 seem really similar.
Could they be combined?
- Issue: Checkpoint 4.4: We don't have good success
criteria for his because I think it is an HTML-specific problem. Perhaps
this goes as an HTML technique under checkpoint 4.2? We can't say this
about XML, Java, Flash, PDF, etc. applications. I think it only applies
to HTML since HTML has a default rendering and does not have richly
defined semantics. I did not spend much time on this checkpoint since it
seems out of place.
- Slightly reworded checkpoint text of 4.3 to tighten up the language
(it's all the same words, just in a different order). was "4.3 Design
assistive-technology compatible user interfaces." now is "4.3 Design user
interfaces compatible with assistive technology. "
These edits are the result of discussions within the working group since
the 28 March 2001 version. New open issues and questions are interspersed
within the list of changes to this version.
Throughout all the checkpoints
- Issue: changed to h3 and h4 from definition lists per
Tom Martin's suggestion. I am concerned that checkpoints don't stand out.
Everything has the same margin and they are a light blue w/out bold.
Help?
- added following clasess and subsections: defn (definitions), benefit
(who benefits/rationale), criteria (success criteria), example
(non-normative examples).
- created user style sheets people can use to hide different subsections
of each checkpoint. will generate this dynamically eventually.
- Added some definitions inline. This is not the best way to do it. I
would like to pull the definitions from the WAI Glossary dynamically or
put a link to the WAI Glossary.
- Issue: should the checkpoints be generic statements of
"what" or "how?" If "what" then we should replace all of the "use markup
to..." with something less "how-ish." Tom pointed this discrepancy
out.
- Issue: All of the examples are of things that will
pass the success criteria. Do we want examples of things that won't pass?
might be a lot of examples...
- Tom Martin contributed to cleaning up the language throughout the
document.
Introduction
- Modified the first paragraph a bit. Realized that if we started this
whole thing off with "this is how to make attractive, functional, usable
sites accessible" it might mean that accessible is not attractive,
functional or usable. This is a conception we try to avoid a lot.
- Tightened some of the language about various devices and
situations.
- Did not incoroporateKatie and Paul's
proposed last statement, "Web site designers can make a difference in the
lives of millions of people by employing these principles in their own
design." Since I think we just made that point.
- The "Who benefits" section was replaced with an edited version of Lisa
Seeman's proposal from 12 July 2001. I agree with Emmanuelle that
situations are important, and I think that is covered in both Lisa's
proposal as well as Paul and Katie's first paragraph. Note that I did not
include the examples for each of her main points (devices, systems,
people). Are the examples essential to understanding? I can work them
back in if I have made it too terse.
- At the June F2F
(minutes), Lisa and Matt took an action to write something for the
intro re: universal access and Paul took an action to add something about
optimized presentations. These have not been completed yet.
Action: Lisa, Matt, and Paul: please review the intro to
see if these things are still needed. If so, please submit proposals to
the list.
- I did not include the section "Optimizing content for Specific
Disability Types" since I think this is part of the server-side scripting
techniques and the "appendix" that paul mentioned at the june F2F (refer
to my question to him on 23 July 2001).
- Added new sections: Scope (based on Paul's "Broad Nature") and
Audience.
- Moved "Differences between WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0" and "Improvements in
WCAG 2.0" to an Appendix called, "Appendix C: The differences between
WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0"
- Issue: Made "design principles" a new section after
the Introduction but before the Guidelines/Checkpoints. Could this be the
executive summary?
- Issue: I did not add Paul's "Limitations" section. It
discusses the usability/accessibility conendrum which we have not yet
resolved.
- Issue: I also have not added conformance yet, since we
haven't discussed and left the "Priorities and Techniques" section from
the last few drafts. In his proposal he included "Technology specificity"
and "Disability type specificity" these are open issues we need to
address.
- Tried to write intro sections for Comprehension and Technology
considerations (that would parallel the intro for Presentation and
Interaction) but gave up. Particularly because Paul tried to pull these
together in his intro, so I'm not sure if I should continue or if we want
something more succinct. Perhaps this really goes in an executive summary
instead of a lengthy intro.
- Issue: Intro seems really long now. Not sure how to
break it into smaller chunks. Thinks there is a prose bit about design
principles and a structure bit about the purpose/scope/goal/audience of
the document.
- Got rid of the "New" style and only left the "Proposed."
Guideline 1
- checkpoint 1.5: Use markup to identify changes in natural language.
therefore if the change is between pages, then you identify it on the
page, if it is between words, then identify it at the word level. That is
what made it a p1 in wcag 1.0 - the changes. I purposefully did not use
"content" or "document" as those are the two terms we had argued about
because of the implied scope.
- in checkpoint 1.2 replaced auditory description with audio description
per Geoff
Freed's comments to the UA working group as Joe Clark pointed out to
us.
- Major change: Combined checkpoint 1.2 and 1.3 into one
checkpoint. It was proposed by Sean
(13 January 2001) and William
(8 January 2001) in separate threads. They received some support. As
I was working on the success criteria they fit together well. whether you
synchronize a text-equivalent as an audio description or syncrhonize a
recorded human voice - those seem to be techniques.
- New checkpoint 1.4 - this is the language checkpoint proposed
by Gregory (17 May 2001)
- Issue: Checkpoint 1.3 Isn't a data model inherit in
the language that you choose? for example, the RDF model vs. the XML
model? Therefore, will an author directly insert content into a data
model? e.g. refer to the XPath and XQuery data model
spec, it's a processor that inserts data into the data model. Is that
within our scope? I propose we delete the words "data model" from this
checkpoint. Actually, perhaps we ought to reword this to, "Clearly define
the structure of content."
Guideline 2
- Issue: Delete the following from 2.1. "a link that
jumps over navigation links and positions the user at the beginning of
the primary content on the page," Where should it go instead??
- Issue:2.1 in general is very weak. We all agree this
isn't exactly what we want to say, but we haven't figured out what we do
want to say. The checkpoint makes it sound like to succeed you must check
that each piece of content has at least 2 paths to it. That's pretty
intense, and not exactly what we were hoping for. The success criteria is
particularly weak, as I do not think this is an exhaustive list.
- Issue: Checkpoint 2.2 - don't have good examples right
now. This would be a good one for us to look at actual sites and
determine which we think conform or not. We could then build examples
from that exercise.
- reworded 2.4 based on Anne's
suggestion of 10 June 2001 this basically combines the original and
Matt
May's proposal from 10 June 2001.
- checkpoint 2.5: in all of the other success criteria I preface the
checks with, "you will have successfully...if you:". in 2.5 I added a
second part, "you will have successfully ... if the user..." Just to
see.
- Issue: Checkpoint 2.6 is new to WCAG 2.0 (per the 12 July
2001 telecon), but is inherited from checkpoint 7.1 in WCAG 1.0. In
1.0 we used an "until user agents" clause. I deleted that in this
version. I did not have a good example nor success criteria. How would
one test for flicker? Isn't it different on each monitor depending on the
hardware? Is it really an authoring issue?
Guideline 3
- Issue: I am tempted to delete checkpoint 3.1 since i
think the main points are covered in checkpoints 2.2 (Provide consistent
and predictable responses to user actions) and 3.2 (Emphasize structure
through presentation, positioning, and labels.). The main benefit of
consistent presentation is predictability of where to find things for
orientation and understanding.
- Checkpoint 3.2 is weak. Had a difficult time with all sections.
- 3.3
- I did not change "writing" to "content" as Matt
May suggested on 11 May 2001. I initially felt it was a great
idea, but as I worked on success criteria it seemed to bleed into 3.1
and 3.2...which is an interesting idea. We might want to combine
these three into: Present content consistently and simply...
- Instead I did change 3.3 to read, "Write as simple as possible yet
appropriate for the site's content." The real focus of this
checkpoint seems to be simplicity, so I dropped clarity. Possibly a
mistake.
- I also thought about changing "simple" to "transparent" since in
the thesaurus, "artless" is associated with "simple." However, I left
it. We can discuss more later.
- the success criteria needs work.
- it needs examples
to do for next version (next week?)
- incorporate tom's edits to "diffs betwen wcag 1.0 and wcag 2.0",
techniques/priorities, etc.
- make the headings hang out to the left more than everything
underneath
- intro sections to each guideline (grab from WCAG 1.0?)
- check benefits sections against WCAG 1.0
- finish editing checkpoints 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4
These edits are the result of feedback on the 25 January 2001 Public Working
Draftand discussion at the 2 March 2001
F2F and the 22
March 2001 telecon. Summary of comments on the 25
January 2001 public draft.
- Moved the preamble of Guideline 3 to the introduction. The preamble
discusses that these guidelines apply only to web content that has a user
interface and not to machine-readable only content.
- I began writing introductions to each guideline, but realized that
these intros seemed to fit in an executive summary or an introduction. So
I began writing an intro looking at the 4 guidelines, but quickly got
mired in my overuse of metaphors and decided to stop. Help is
appreciated.
- Moved Checkpoint 1.6 to guideline 2, it is now 2.6
- Moved checkpoint 1.7 to guideline 4, it is now 4.4. Edited
slightly.
- Edited checkpoint 2.1 it is now 2 checkpoints.
- Kynn originally suggested, "Provide a variety of navigation
mechanisms"
- At the 22 March 2001 call, we agreed on, "Provide more than one
path or mechanism to find content."
- At CSUN, KB, CMN, and WC talked about this. The point was made that
some places may only need one path to get to content, if the site is
small enough or simple enough. Therefore, I looked through Jakob
Nielsen's "Designing Web Usability" and found the idea of
"user-controlled navigation" on pg 214. I thought about using
"Support user-controlled interaction (including navigation)." But am
concerned that this is still too vague or too jargony. Also,
checkpoints 2.3 and 2.4 seem to fold into this which either means it
a good basic principle or it is too general. It basically restates
the theme of this whole guideline. Therefore I went with what we
decided at the meeting on 22 March.
- Replace checkpoint 2.2 with the 2nd part of checkpoint 2.1. In other
words, deleted checkpoint 2.2. The new checkpoint 2.2 is the second part
of the old checkpoint 2.1.
- replaced the phrase "interaction behavior" with "responses to user
actions"
- found an interesting resource: Sample
Chapter 5: Interface and Interaction Design that talks about
interaction as a conversation and therefore that rules of politeness
apply.
- Edited checkpoint 2.3.
- Moved checkpoint 2.5 as a technique of 2.1.
- Added lots of material to introduction. Began explaining the 4
principles of the 4 guidelines here rather than before each
guideline.
- Added a catch phrase to each guideline (presentation, interaction,
comprehension, technology considerations).
These edits are the result of discussion at the 18 January 2001
telecon (minutes).
- Edited Guideline 1 based on Ian's suggestion.
- Edited text immediately following Guideline 1.
- Edited Checkpoint 1.7 to replace the phrase "transform gracefully."
- Edited Guideline 2 per Ian's suggestion.
- Edited Checkpoint 2.2 - replaced use of word "focus". Also edited
supplementary text.
- Added an Abstract.
- Deleted the WAI logo (no W3C working draft includes the domain logo at
the top).
- Brought the copyright up front.
- Added Appendix B: Contributors.
- Edited the "Priorities and techniques" section per Judy's
suggestions.
- Made sure the following phrases were used and capitalized consistently
throughout the document: Working Group and Working Draft.
- Updated the checkpoint mapping.
- Moved the icon from checkpoint 1.1 to checkpoint 3.4 and use it as an
example.
- Edited the first sentence of the Introduction to make clear that the
draft's purpose is for feedback rather than internal discussion by the
Working Group.
All of these edits are the result of discussion at the 11 January 2001
telecon (minutes).
- Reworded Guideline 1 to include capabilities of user agents (as well as
devices).
- Added a checkpoint to Guideline 1 that addresses graceful
transformation. Related: open issue
#25 and open issue #38.
- Added a checkpoint to Guideline 4 that addresses selecting languages
that follow these guidelines, followed by a separate checkpoint that
addresses using the chosen language in accordance with its
specification.
- Dropped the word "navigate" from the text of Guideline 2.
- Removed the note in checkpoint 3.6 that discussed only expanding the
first occurrence of an abbreviation of acronym. This is open issue #39.
- Added supplementary text to checkpoint 3.6 (define key terms,
abbreviations, etc.)
- Deleted all of the @@'s. Several in glossary that said "need
definition" replaced with "Not yet defined."
11 January 2001 version
- Added Table of Contents
- Added new section to Introduction, "Priorities and Techniques."
- Reworded Guideline 1 to focus on device independence. Brought 3
checkpoints in from other guidelines.
- Added a short description about user needs and preferences after the
text of Guideline 1.
- Edited checkpoint 1.1 - deleted the parenthetical, "audio clips,
images, videos, etc." The supplementary text beneath it is unchanged.
- Edited checkpoint 1.2 - deleted "For any time-based multimedia
presentation (e.g., a movie or animation)" and "(e.g., captions of the
audio track or descriptions of the video track)". Edited the
supplementary text to make clearer. Added definitions of captions and
auditory descriptions.
- No change to checkpoint 1.3.
- Checkpoint 1.4 was Checkpoint 2.3 in the 21 November 2000 version. No
change other than moving it.
- Checkpoint 1.5 was Checkpoint 2.2 in the 21 November 2000 version. The
checkpoint text was edited to be more general but the supplementary text
remains the same.
- Checkpoint 1.6 was Checkpoint 5.3 in the 21 November 2000 version. The
checkpoint text remains the same but supplementary text was added. None
had existed before.
- Guideline 2 was reworded, it is similar to Guideline 4 from the 21
November 2000 version. There is a question about adding information about
user preferences and needs after the text of Guideline 2. This is noted
with @@ in the draft.
- Checkpoint 2.1 was checkpoint 4.1 in the 21 November 2000 version. Both
the text of the checkpoint and the supplementary text were edited.
- Checkpoint 2.2 was Checkpoint 3.10 in the 21 November 2000 version. No
change other than moving it.
- Checkpoint 2.3 was checkpoint 3.11 in the 21 November 2000 version. No
change other than moving it.
- Checkpoint 2.4 was checkpoint 4.3 in the 21 November 2000 version. No
change other than moving it.
- Checkpoint 2.5 was checkpoint 4.2 in the 21 November 2000 version. No
change other than moving it.
- Guideline 3 is basically the same, although the number of checkpoints
was decreased from 11 to 7.
- Minor edit to checkpoint 3.1.
- Checkpoint 3.2 is a combination of checkpoints 3.2, 3.4, and 3.5 from
the 21 November 2000 version.
- Checkpoint 3.3 was checkpoint 3.6 in the 21 November 2000 version.
Minor edit to the checkpoint text, no change to the supplementary
text.
- Checkpoint 3.4 was checkpoint 3.7 in the 21 November 2000 version.
Minor edits to the checkpoint text and the supplementary text.
- Checkpoint 3.5 was checkpoint 3.8 in the 21 November 2000 version.
Minor edits to the checkpoint text and the supplementary text.
- Checkpoint 3.6 was checkpoint 3.9 in the 21 November 2000 version.
Minor edits to the checkpoint text and the supplementary text. Added a
question about the note and identified the need for supplementary
text.
- Checkpoint 3.7 was checkpoint 3.3 in the 21 November 2000 version.
Minor edit to the checkpoint text, no change to the supplementary
text.
- Guideline 4 is new.
- Checkpoint 4.1 was checkpoint 2.1 in the 21 November 2000 version.
Added the text "API's, and protocols" to the checkpoint text. No change
to the supplementary text.
- Checkpoint 4.2 was checkpoint 5.4 in the 21 November 2000 version.
Added a note about backwards compatibility.
- Two checkpoints from the 21 November 2000 version did not seem to fit
into the new structure:
- 6.1 (graceful transformation) seems to be a general concept that
could be moved to the introduction. this is where this is explained
in WCAG 1.0
- 6.2 Seems to be redundant. There was at least one proposal to
delete this checkpoint. It also could be moved to the Introduction or
an appendix. However, it is our best link to the XML Accessibility
Guidelines.
- Checkpoint 1.1 was modified in the following ways:
- tried to illustrate the premise of checkpoint 1.1 in an image (ala
Jonathan Chetwyn's and Anne Pemberton's requests for more images in
WAI work). I, Wendy, have never claimed to be a graphic artist and
this may not be the most appropriate image but I wanted to give it a
shot. Provided a "longdesc" and "d-link."
- realized that both Jason's and Lisa's proposals, were very similar
to the WCAG 1.0 checkpoint 1.1. The premise of WCAG 1.0 checkpoint
1.1 expresses what we are saying, but then confuses the issue with
HTML-specific examples but then doesn't give rationale nor a clear
definition of a "text equivalent." Therefore, WCAG 2.0 checkpoint 1.1
echoes the WCAG 1.0 version, but hopefully better.
- included a definition of "text equivalent" based on Lisa's and
Jason's proposals as well as other comments on those proposals (Kynn,
William). This includes rationale as to why text equivalents are
necessary (per the 2 November
2000 teleconresolution to include rationales). Refer to the
thread "checkpoint
1.1" started by Jason White - 27 October 2000 as well as Lisa
Seeman's response on 1 November 2000.
- included 3 examples of "text equivalent" to further help people
determine what it means.
- Several people want "rationale" text or further descriptions, but
William and Charles do not want it in this document. My sense is that
we fold it in here, but it will not be visible in a checklist,
therefore a "checklist" provides the "disappearing text" that William
keeps talking about
- tried to keep the language as simple as possible.
- Per the resolution at the 2 November 2000
telecon, added checkpoint 1.3, which incorporates "auditory
description" (checkpoint 1.3 from WCAG 1.0). It is a rewrite of that
checkpoint in the following ways:
- It does not use an "until user agent" clause.
- It defines "auditory description" in the note of the checkpoint. We
may want to change 1.2 (provide synchronized equivalents) to focus on
synchronized visual equivalents to create symmetry between the
two.
- Checkpoint 2.3 was modified in the following ways:
- "Data model" links to an entry in the glossary
- "Logical structure" is defined with examples.
- Rationale was added.
- Tried to keep the language as simple as possible.
- and it is based on the discussion of Jason
White's proposal from 28 October 2000.
- Two classes added and used to markup edits:
- proposed = edits not yet reviewed or accepted by the working
group
- new = edits that have been accepted by the working group but are
still relatively new and we are not completely sure of them.
- Added new section to the Introduction, "Why publish a new version?"
- Edited checkpoint 2.1 for clarification.
- Edited checkpoint 2.3 to be clear and to combine it with the previous
2.4 and 2.5
- Added text to the explanation of checkpoint 3.2.
- Replaced "avoid" with "do not use" in checkpoint 4.3, 6.2, and 6.3, the
language seems too strong yet it is more clear.
- Combined checkpoints 6.1 and 6.4 into 6.1.
- "Principle" replaced with "Guideline", "Guideline" replaced with
"checkpoint"
- "textual" replaced with "text"
- Reworded Guideline 2 to read: Separate content and structure from
presentation and explicitly define significant structural or semantic
distinctions in markup or in a data model.
- Reworded checkpoint 2.3 to read: Where presentation is used to
communicate distinctions of meaning or structure within the content, also
define these distinctions in the markup or data model so that a user
agent can create alternative presentations.
- Reworded 2.4 to read: Use presentation (e.g. color or font changes) to
enhance semantic distinctions but not as the only means to understand
them
- Reworded 2.5 to read: Use markup or a data model to provide logical
structure to the content, together with any additional semantic
distinctions that facilitate rendering of the content visually,
auditorily, or tactually."
- Guideline 3 reworded to read: Design for ease of comprehension
- Reworded checkpoint 3.1 to read: Use a consistent style of presentation
that will facilitate comprehension of the content.
- Reworded the note for checkpoint 3.1 to read: Consistency helps users
determine the relationships between items in the content. This ability to
understand the structure helps users navigate, orient themselves, and
thus understand.
- Made lisa's note for 3.1 checkpoint 3.2: Use color, styles, and
graphics to emphasize the structure of the document.
- The Note to 3.2 reads: This will help the user
- orient himself or herself within the document,
- focus on the important elements of the document,
- differentiate between a key element and the explanatory or
supplementary material.
- Made her suggestions to 3.3 with minor edits (in her draft it is
3.2).
- Moved 3.8 up to 3.4 and reworded so that 3.3 is to divide info into
blocks and 3.4 is to label the blocks appropriately. Reworded examples to
be more concise.
- Incorporated her description of "highly structured materials."
- Added new 3.9 (Minimize content that will interfere with the user's
ability to focus).
- Added her proposed Guideline 4. Design for ease of browsing and
navigation
- Moved the appropriate checkpoints from guideline 3 to 4. Added
explanatory text for 4.2
- Left 3.5 in (Place distinguishing information at the beginning of
headings, paragraphs, lists, etc.Examples? Explanations?) Lisa didn't
seem to include it anywhere, although it seems related to 3.3 (Divide
large blocks of information into more manageable groups where natural and
appropriate.)
$Date: 2010/09/09 15:20:42 $