Re: RE: SC 2.4.6 wording

Sorry that I wasn't clearer - my most recent attempt was trying just
to reword 2.4.6., and not to combine it with 1.3.3. Your comments
still uncovered problems with the attempt.

Loretta

On 3/4/07, Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu> wrote:
> One way might be to not combine the two.  It might be easier to work them
> separately.  I think they may indeed be independent items that use a couple
> common words but not in the same way actually -- resulting in the problem we
> keep coming up with.
>
>
> Gregg
>  -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com]
> > Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 12:22 AM
> > To: Gregg Vanderheiden
> > Cc: Sean Hayes; Gez Lemon; Slatin, John M; TeamB
> > Subject: Re: RE: SC 2.4.6 wording
> >
> > Good catch. While I think there is  one programmatically determined
> > reading order (at least within the bounds of 1.3.3) there are other
> > relationships that could be reflected in the tab order.
> >
> > Sean, I'm not sure we are coming up with a better wording for 2.4.6.
> > Do you have any suggestions for how to improve things, or should we
> > live with the current wording? Do you at least have suggestions for
> > disambiguating the current phrasing, since you felt it could be used
> > to justify any tab order?
> >
> > Loretta
> >
> > On 3/4/07, Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu> wrote:
> > > Side note
> > >
> > > Is there only one 'programmatically determined' reading order?  Seems
> > like
> > > there could be multiple in a table for example.
> > >
> > > If you mean the order that the code appears in the source file then that
> > may
> > > not be the order that is presented or even a logical presentation order.
> > >
> > > When you think cross technology this one gets very complicated.
> > >
> > >
> > > 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: Sunday, March 04, 2007 7:43 PM
> > > > To: Sean Hayes
> > > > Cc: Gez Lemon; Slatin, John M; TeamB
> > > > Subject: Re: RE: SC 2.4.6 wording
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Let me take another crack at the wording of SC 2.4.6. Is this
> > > > getting any closer to what we mean?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 1.3.3 Meaningful Sequence: When the sequence in which content
> > > > is presented affects its meaning, when the content is
> > > > navigated sequentially, the interactive components within
> > > > that content receive focus in an order that is consistent
> > > > with the programmatically-determined reading order.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > (This is still very difficult to parse; suggestions for
> > > > clearer wording welcome...)
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 5 March 2007 06:57:57 UTC