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 15:16:19 -0800
Message-ID: <824e742c0702231516x440e8725yf22748e369027e1@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>

PDF is, of course, one of the technologies that particularly drives
the need for this SC and the content order SC. Because the rendering
and the structure are completely separate, it is possible to do all
kinds of things that look fine visually but produce completely
unusable DOMs.

PDF is another reason that we can't use terms like "content order"
here (although it is a very useful concept for these issues in mark-up
languages.)

Given that CSS may render blocks on the page in a different order from
the content order, I agree that we don't want to require that the tab
order be the content order.

These were some of the reasons for the appeal to "sequences and
relationships in the content". I think John's proposal was getting
closer, although I'm not sure there is a reliable way to distinguish
two independent columns from two columns, one of which is the
continuation of the first, without actually understanding the content.

Loretta

On 2/23/07, Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> wrote:
> Well in the example I was intending it to be one article, but where the content order was for some reason scrambled - e.g. content was being added to the end of the file but getting inserted out of order in the presentation, which for example I beleive can happen in PDF (or at least it used to).
>
> The first example was where the author intensionally caused the sequential navigation order to cross columns (it might even redefine itself as the columns reflow to ensure it continued to make sense), this is a fine and dandy approach in the visual space - but it is not robust because as you say it would confuse a user who had to navigate the content in reading order.
>
> The second example, where the order was intensional and robust is supposed to be the exemplar version.
>
> The third example points out that it is possible to be robust, but without intension the order could still not make sense. If they were two articles, then the default order might also be OK intensionally.
>
> The last point I wanted to make is that there may be other non-content-order sequences which are both robust and intensional. So we shouldn't necessarily restrict it to presentation order must equal content order must equal navigation order (although often that is the simplest way of doing things)
>
> As an additional point, it might be reasonable for an author to use the first navigation sequence if they had the technology to ensure the second sequence got used for those that needed it, but I need to think more on that.
>
>
> Sean Hayes
> Standards and Policy Team
> Accessible Technology Group
> Microsoft
> Phone:
>   mob +44 7977 455002
>   office +44 117 9719730
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com]
> Sent: 23 February 2007 22:46
> To: Sean Hayes
> Cc: Slatin, John M; TeamB
> Subject: Re: RE: SC 2.4.6 wording
>
> Oops - I'm back to not understanding what you mean by this again. <grin>
>
> The idea behind this SC is that the tab order should follow the content order where the order of the content is important. So tab order should follow content order  through a column of text, but if there are two independent articles on a page, it doesn't matter which comes first in the tab order. And in a table, it might make sense for tab order to be by row or by column, but shouldn't be random.
>
> Does any of this map into either intensional or robust?
>
>
>
> On 2/23/07, Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > Precisely - it needs to be intensional AND robust.
> >
> >
> > Sean Hayes
> > Standards and Policy Team
> > Accessible Technology Group
> > Microsoft
> > Phone:
> >   mob +44 7977 455002
> >   office +44 117 9719730
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com]
> > Sent: 23 February 2007 22:31
> > To: Sean Hayes
> > Cc: Slatin, John M; TeamB
> > Subject: Re: RE: SC 2.4.6 wording
> >
> > Thanks, having a concrete example does help.
> >
> > I think that the first order you listed (which jumps between columns) should fail this success criterion, even if it was intentional.
> > Someone who can't see the text is going to be completely confused as he tabs through that tab order. If the rendering of the page changes so that the columns are no longer next to one another, but sequential,  it won't make any sense to a sighted person, either.
> >
> > Loretta
> >
> > On 2/23/07, Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > OK here is an example of what I'm thinking of:
> > >
> > > A two or more column newspaper style layout. The content has links dispersed throughout.
> > >
> > > (this might not work but here is a text example)
> > >
> > > Pellentesque <lorem> ipsum, euismod ut,   Nulla enim massa, <lorem> elementum vitae,
> > > gravida non, elementum eget, sapien.    euismod ac, placerat in, <lorem> tellus.
> > > Fusce a felis. Cras <lorem> <lorem>,    auctor id, lacinia sed, dolor.
> > > commodo ut, lacinia in, sagittis ut,    Etiam consequat dapibus metus.
> > > orci. Vivamus aliquet magna ut diam.    Cras suscipit volutpat nunc.
> > > Nunc aliquam leo non felis. Aenean              Quisque ipsum. Quisque <lorem> felis.
> > > pulvinar. Nunc fermentum. Cras neque.   Sed vehicula cursus lacus.
> > > Aenean cursus. Donec malesuada sem              Aenean pede lacus, accumsan sed,
> > > in lectus auctor varius. Suspendisse    convallis in, varius egestas, nisi.
> > > arcu metus, cursus et, imperdiet                Curabitur at libero. Etiam ipsum orci,
> > > quis, tincidunt eu, arcu.                       tristique ut, lobortis quis, ante.
> > >
> > > Where the <lorem>'s are links.
> > >
> > > An intensional decision might be to do [(Column1, Link1),(Column2,
> > > Link1), (Column2, Link2), (Column1, Link2), (Column1, Link3),
> > > (Column2, Link3)] which is an appropriate order in the visual space (minimises scrolling).
> > >
> > > Another intensional order might be
> > > [(Column1, Link1),(Column1, Link2), (Column1, Link3), (Column2,
> > > Link1), (Column2, Link2),  (Column2, Link3)]  (reading order)
> > >
> > > The first of these would probably not be robust for a screen reader. Whereas the second could be.
> > >
> > > Assuming the content order was Column 2, Column1 (for some reason); the default order would not be an intensional order, although it would be robust.
> > > [(Column2, Link1), (Column2, Link2),  (Column2, Link3), (Column1,
> > > Link1),(Column1, Link2), (Column1, Link3) ]  (default order)
> > >
> > > There may be other appropriate intensional orders which could also be robust (e.g. appropriate in a screen reader_ e.g. If for some reason - say the author wanted to visit all the level 1 headers before the Level2+ headers.
> > >
> > > Hope this helps.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sean Hayes
> > > Standards and Policy Team
> > > Accessible Technology Group
> > > Microsoft
> > > Phone:
> > >   mob +44 7977 455002
> > >   office +44 117 9719730
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com]
> > > Sent: 23 February 2007 21:37
> > > To: Sean Hayes
> > > Cc: Slatin, John M; TeamB
> > > Subject: Re: RE: SC 2.4.6 wording
> > >
> > > 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 23:16:48 GMT

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