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

RE: RE: SC 2.4.6 wording

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 21:18:37 -0600
To: "'Loretta Guarino Reid'" <lorettaguarino@google.com>, "'Slatin, John M'" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Cc: "'Sean Hayes'" <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>, "'TeamB'" <public-wcag-teamb@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002301c75ae7$3505db70$ea12220a@NC84301>

I agree.

I thought I wrote a note on this earlier.  Combining these has the
unintended effect of making it sound like there is one order rather than any
order that a person could see as logical to a user (not a programmer).


Gregg
 -- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
> Loretta Guarino Reid
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 8:01 PM
> To: Slatin, John M
> Cc: Sean Hayes; TeamB
> Subject: Re: RE: SC 2.4.6 wording
>
>
> I am concerned that it might outlaw things like tabbing
> through a table in column order rather than row order. Can
> anyone else think of situations where we would want a tab
> order that didn't match the reading order?
>
> Loretta
>
> On 2/27/07, Slatin, John M <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > I think the proposal to combine works well..
> >
> > I think this is cleaner than cross-referencing. Note that accepting
> > this proposal would eliminate what's current SC 2.4.6 (OK by me!).
> >
> > 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: Monday, February 26, 2007 1:29 PM
> > To: Loretta Guarino Reid; Slatin, John M
> > Cc: TeamB
> > Subject: RE: RE: SC 2.4.6 wording
> >
> >
> > 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 Wednesday, 28 February 2007 03:19:38 GMT

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