W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag-teamc@w3.org > December 2006

Re: Changes to G117 to support merging 1.3.1 and 1.3.4

From: Andi Snow-Weaver <andisnow@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:35:31 -0600
To: public-wcag-teamc@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF71443030.218D9265-ON86257241.00762FC2-86257241.00769BF9@us.ibm.com>

I would modify the title of Example 1 from "An on-line test requires
students to write a short summary of a longer document." to "An on-line
test requires students to write a summary using words that are highlighted
with a different font."

Can we add an example of where conveying the information in text is not

Example 3. Emphasizing words

In a paragraph, key words have been emphasized with bold text. Because the
bold style can be programmatically determined, a screen reader reads the
words with emphasis to blind users.


             "Becky Gibson"                                                
             esdev.ibm.com>                                             To 
             Sent by:                  public-wcag-teamc@w3.org            
             public-wcag-teamc                                          cc 
                                       Changes to G117 to support merging  
             12/11/2006 02:55          1.3.1 and 1.3.4                     

At the December 4 team C meeting we discussed changes to the 1.3.1 how to
meet document [1] to support folding 1.3.4 into 1.3.1.   Andi expressed
some concern about including G117 [2], "Using text to convey information
that is conveyed by variations in presentation of text", as a sufficient
technique because it does not require the variations in presentation of
text to use semantic markup as is required by 1.3.1.

This brings up the age old question of what exactly is programmatically
determined. Changes to the font via CSS can be programmatically
determined. However, what that CSS styling change means (the information)
is NOT conveyed programmatically. Thus, changes in presentation made via
CSS  to convey information would fail 1.3.1 (and this is covered in
Failure F2: Failure of SC 1.3.1 and 1.3.4 due to using CSS to create
variations in presentation of text that conveys information without also
using the appropriate markup or text).   I think the question is,  in the
case where the user is not conveying the INFORMATION in a programmatically
determined manner, is using text to convey the information a sufficient
technique for 1.3.1?

Here is how I would modify G117 to cover that:
through variations in the formatting of text it is also conveyed in text,
unless the information conveyed can also be programmatically determined.
When the visual appearance of text is varied to convey information and the
information is not programmatically determinable, state the information
explicitly via text. Variations in the visual appearance can be made by
changes in styling or via markup elements such as HTML strong, em, cite
and others. When variations are made via style changes only, the
information conveyed can not be programmatically determined and that
information needs to be available elsewhere in the content via text. When
changes are made via markup elements which convey meaning such as strong
and em, the information can be determined programmatically.  Including
additional sections in the document or an in-line description where the
variation in presentation of text occurs can be used to convey the
examples where
the information can not be programmatically determined and thus the
information must also be provided in text. Perhaps provide an introduction
to the examples:
where the
information conveyed by the changes in presentation can not be
programmatically determined and an additional text description is
example 1 and example 2 remain unchanged.
Add to the related techniques section:
up structure
Update the test section:
presentation of text are used to
convey information <ins>and the information can not be programmatically
<ins>only</ins> visually is also stated explicitly in text.




Becky Gibson

IBM Emerging Internet Technologies
Received on Monday, 11 December 2006 21:35:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:02:35 UTC