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

Re: RE: SC 2.4.6 wording

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 13:37:28 -0800
Message-ID: <824e742c0702231337g40bcecfah65fc1330d06a9423@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Sean Hayes" <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Slatin, John M" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, TeamB <public-wcag-teamb@w3.org>

I'm not sure of what you mean by the intensionality or robustness of
the ordering. Can you give some examples that might clarify what sorts
of content that would pass but shouldn't, or vice versa?

Loretta

On 2/23/07, Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> wrote:
> 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 21:37:47 GMT

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