RE: Action item: Proposed wording for SC 1.3.1 (long)

Doh! Sorry about that!

Here is what I *meant* to send-- it actually includes the proposed
wording for the SC along with the discussion. My apologies!

John

<realProposal>
Proposed wording for SC 1.3.1

<proposed>
Information and relationships conveyed through presentation can be
programmatically determined.
</proposed>

Definition of programmatically determined
<proposed>
Programmatically determined
Recognized by assistive technology that supports the technologies in the
chosen baseline
</proposed>

Current wording for SC 1.3.1
<current>
Perceivable structures within the content can be programmatically
determined.
</current>

Current definition of programmatically determined
<Current>
Recognized by user agents, including assistive technology, that support
the technologies in the chosen baseline
</current>

Rationale
Guideline 1.3 encourages authors to "Ensure that information and
structure can be separated from presentation." The success criteria
(1.3.1-1.3.6) define what must be true in order to ensure that
information and structure can be separated from presentation.

We define "information" as  (1) a message to be sent and received, and
(2) a collection of facts or data from which inferences may be drawn. As
of 2 March 2006, we define "structure" as (1) The way the parts of an
authored unit are organized in relation to each other and (2) The way a
collection of Web pages or other primary resources is organized."  We
define "presentation" as "the rendering of the content and structure in
a form that can be perceived by the user."

Thus the proposed wording means that any messages to be sent and
received, any facts or data from which inferences may be drawn, and any
relationships among the parts of an authored unit, must be capable of
being recognized by assistive technology that supports technologies used
to encode the information and specified in the baseline. "Technology" is
defined in the glossary as markup language, programming language, style
sheet, data format, or API. The baseline is the set of technologies
which the author may assume are active in the user agent.

For HTML and other markup languages, the proposed wording does not
require markup for any information or relationship that is not conveyed
through presentation. (An example of such a relationship would be the
use of some literary symbol to give thematic coherence to a document or
collection of documents.) Again for HTML and other markup languages,
markup would be required to identify any information  or any
relationship conveyed through presentation. (An example would be a
phrase whose role as a section heading is indicated by placing the
phrase on a line by itself above some grouping of information, or the
logical relationships among numbers arranged in rows and columns .)

When information and relationships are encoded using data formats that
do not allow for structural markup-such as images, audio files,
animations, and video-WCAG already requires text alternatives under GL
1.1. Where these types of non-text content convey information or present
relationships, the information and relationships are conveyed by the
text alternatives. That is, the proposed SC does not require (for
example) the use of SVG for all images. But where SVG is used and the
image conveys information or relationships through presentation, the
information and relationships must be capable of being recognized by AT.
And since that isn't possible now-even the relationship between an image
and its text alternative(s) can't be recognized by AT yet-GL 4.2 comes
into play and an accessible alternative is required-an image that can be
programmatically associated with a text alternative. 
</realProposal> 



"Good design is accessible design." 
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/


 


-----Original Message-----
From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lguarino@adobe.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 12:17 pm
To: John M Slatin; public-wcag-teamb@w3.org
Subject: RE: Action item: Proposed wording for SC 1.3.1 (long)

John, this looks like a definition of presentation. Are there changes to
the SC that would take advantage of it?

Loretta Guarino Reid
lguarino@adobe.com
Adobe Systems, Acrobat Engineering 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org [mailto:public- 
> wcag-teamb-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John M Slatin
> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 8:22 AM
> To: public-wcag-teamb@w3.org
> Subject: Action item: Proposed wording for SC 1.3.1 (long)
> 
> 
> Hello, Team B. Thanks again for all the good work these past few 
> weeks-- special thanks to Loretta for her work in keeping our status 
> page up to date and to everyone for thinking things through, making 
> updates, and helping to sort things out. We're getting closer and 
> closer to our goal!
> 
> A big item: on yesterday's call, Team B was asked to re- examine SC 
> 1.3.1 and propose new wording for it. This has been one of the most 
> difficult and controversial-- and one of the most important-- SC in 
> the Guidelines. And it's still not quite right!
> 
> Please consider the following proposal. It presents proposed wording 
> for the SC, together with definitions of some key terms and a 
> rationale. Try to break it-- where are the holes in the wording, 
> logic, etc.? And if you find any holes, please propose alternative 
> wording that would fill the gaps.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> <beginProposal>
> Presentation is the rendering of the content and structure in a form 
> that can be perceived by the user.
> </endProposal>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Good design is accessible design."
> John Slatin, Ph.D.
> Director, Accessibility Institute
> University of Texas at Austin
> FAC 248C
> 1 University Station G9600
> Austin, TX 78712
> ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
> email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
> web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 3 March 2006 18:39:19 UTC