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: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:28:35 +0000
To: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>, "Slatin, John M" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
CC: TeamB <public-wcag-teamb@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7261AC2A5F73904CA41773C8F00813FF1C42BD3F@EA-EXMSG-C309.europe.corp.microsoft.com>

I think this is getting close to it. Although it might be a bit restrictive.


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 Loretta Guarino Reid
Sent: 26 February 2007 03:18
To: Slatin, John M
Cc: Sean Hayes; TeamB
Subject: Re: RE: SC 2.4.6 wording


SC 1.3.3 currently reads:

1.3.3 Meaningful Sequence: When the sequence in which content is presented affects its meaning, a correct reading sequence can be programmatically determined.

Can we leverage this somehow?

<proposal>
When a Web page is navigated sequentially, interactive components receive focus in an order that is consistent with the programmatically determined reading sequence of SC 1.3.3.
<.proposal>

Is it ok to cross-reference SC like this? Maybe this SC should just be folded in to SC 1.3.3 (although they are currently at different levels; but the proposal would move them to the same level.)

<proposal to combine>
SC 1.3.3 currently reads:

1.3.3 Meaningful Sequence: When the sequence in which content is presented affects its meaning, a correct reading sequence can be programmatically determined. When the content is navigated sequentially, interactive components receive focus in an order that is consistent with this sequence.
</proposal to combine>

Loretta

On 2/24/07, Slatin, John M <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu> wrote:
> Here's another proposal:
>
> <newProposal>
> When the default presentation is used to indicate a specific sequence
> in which to navigate content, components within that sequence receive
> focus in the order indicated by the default presentation.
> </newProposal>
>
> I'm trying to capture intentionality in the phrase "is used to
> indicate a  specific sequence"; and
>
> I've tried to capture robustness in the repetition of "default
> presentation." The thought is that even if presentation is altered by
> the user (or by AT), the user will still be able to navigate the
> content in the order indicated by the default presentation.  This is
> presumably the one intended by the author, but since we can't be sure
> of fully understanding the author's intention we can't talk about it
> in a success criterion.
>
> Hope this gets closer.
> 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: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 5:16 PM
> To: Sean Hayes
> Cc: Slatin, John M; TeamB
> Subject: Re: RE: SC 2.4.6 wording
>
>
> 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 Monday, 26 February 2007 19:29:16 GMT

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