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

RE: RE: SC 2.4.6 wording

From: Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 15:31:30 +0000
To: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>, Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
CC: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>, "Slatin, John M" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, TeamB <public-wcag-teamb@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7261AC2A5F73904CA41773C8F00813FF1C5DD243@EA-EXMSG-C309.europe.corp.microsoft.com>

The wording "When a Web page is navigated sequentially, components receive focus in an order that follows relationships and sequences in the content".

Is abstract to the point of vacuity, so there is no way we can keep this.

The 'how to meet' is a little clearer, but introduces the logic word we have had trouble with.

There are two cases of reading order we need to deal with, firstly within a continuous narrative text I believe there is only a single reading order (at least in any written language I have ever heard of). When we consider navigation between diconnected units of narrative text, there is more latitude; but some sense of locality is generally preferred.

Although this gets a little specific, I think we could reasonably proscribe for tabbing:

Ensure every link is visited, and no link is repeated while there is an unvisited link.

For links within the same block of continuous text, navigate to the next link in the inline progression direction (allowing for wrap).

Between blocks, navigate to the first link of the inline progression order in some other block (either the nearest block in the block progression direction, or the inline progression direction, at the authors choice).

Links not in a text run count as a complete block.

Sean Hayes
Standards and Policy Team
Accessible Technology Group
  mob +44 7977 455002
  office +44 117 9719730

-----Original Message-----
From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com]
Sent: 05 March 2007 14:59
To: Tim Boland
Cc: Sean Hayes; Gez Lemon; Slatin, John M; TeamB
Subject: Re: RE: SC 2.4.6 wording

Tim, why don't you post the WAI-ARIA URLs that you think are relevant.
We can use all the inspiration we can get.


On 3/5/07, Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov> wrote:
> There may be multiple reading orders..  Do we want to say "receive
> focus in an order that is the same as a reading order"?
> Thanks and best wishes
> Tim Boland NIST
> PS: If we're talking about tabindex, the WAI-ARIA specs may be of interest.
> Can provide URLs if needed..
>   At 05:43 PM 3/4/2007 -0800, Loretta Guarino Reid wrote:
> >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 15:32:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:55:35 UTC