W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag-teamb@w3.org > February 2007

RE: RE: SC 2.4.6 wording

From: Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 21:18:59 +0000
To: "Slatin, John M" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>, TeamB <public-wcag-teamb@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7261AC2A5F73904CA41773C8F00813FF1C42B982@EA-EXMSG-C309.europe.corp.microsoft.com>

I think it contains some of the elements, but does not adequately capture the intensionality, or robustness of the ordering.


Sean Hayes
Standards and Policy Team
Accessible Technology Group
Microsoft
Phone:
  mob +44 7977 455002
  office +44 117 9719730

-----Original Message-----
From: Slatin, John M [mailto:john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu]
Sent: 23 February 2007 21:17
To: Sean Hayes; Loretta Guarino Reid; TeamB
Subject: RE: RE: SC 2.4.6 wording

Sean,

Does the proposal I made (reprinted below) get close to what you're looking for? Or is it off the mark?

<proposed>
When a navigational sequence is conveyed through presentation, components receive focus  in an order  that follows the relationships and sequences conveyed through  the presentation. </proposed>

There's something not quite right, but I think it's  trying to go in the direction you're suggesting.
John

"Good design is accessible design."

Dr. John M. Slatin, Director
Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524
email john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu
Web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility



-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Hayes [mailto:Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com]
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 2:42 PM
To: Slatin, John M; Loretta Guarino Reid; TeamB
Subject: RE: RE: SC 2.4.6 wording


I'd like the provision to capture two principles:
1) That the navigated order is *intensionally provided* by the author as a natural presentation order of the content (they can use a default for the content type if it is appropriate, but should do so in a mindful, as opposed to accidental way)
2) That if the content is delivered in an alternative modality, that the same order will be presented as that of the primary modality.

Now how we write that down I'm not sure, but I don't think we are there yet.

Sean Hayes
Standards and Policy Team
Accessible Technology Group
Microsoft
Phone:
  mob +44 7977 455002
  office +44 117 9719730

-----Original Message-----
From: public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Slatin, John M
Sent: 23 February 2007 20:29
To: Loretta Guarino Reid; TeamB
Subject: RE: SC 2.4.6 wording


Thanks, Loretta. I think the approach makes sense, but I think "some order" will get us into trouble.

But maybe we can flip it around? How does this sound?


<proposed>
When a navigational sequence is conveyed through presentation, components receive focus  in an order  that follows the relationships and sequences conveyed through  the presentation. </proposed>

Hmm. I wonder if this is already covered under 1.3.1? (The uber-SC...)

John

"Good design is accessible design."

Dr. John M. Slatin, Director
Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524
email john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu
Web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility



-----Original Message-----
From: public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Loretta Guarino Reid
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 7:03 PM
To: TeamB
Subject: SC 2.4.6 wording



Sean raised a number of issues of interpretation with our current wording of SC 2.4.6:

<current>When a Web page is navigated sequentially, components receive focus in an order that follows relationships and sequences in the content. </current>

I thought I'd see whether we could clarify things by borrowing some of the language of SC 1.3.1:

<proposal>
When a Web page is navigated sequentially, components receive focus in some order that follows relationships conveyed through presentation .
</proposal>


Is this any better?

Loretta
Received on Friday, 23 February 2007 21:19:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:45 GMT