RE: ACTION-23 - WCAG response to request to modify intent for 1.3.1 Info and Relationships

I really want to thank you all for the cooperation on this issue.  It is a major improvement in the material connecting the dots for this topic more clearly.  I won't get hung up on phrasing as long as we have the topic covered--e.g. we include tables as we are doing here.  Pierce is posting a minor phrasing change to the survey I believe, but if going back one more time is OK, than I'd be fine with doing so to get it right.



From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 4:38 PM
To: Crowell, Pierce
Cc: 'public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org'
Subject: Re: ACTION-23 - WCAG response to request to modify intent for 1.3.1 Info and Relationships

Hi Pierce,

I think we might ask the WCAG WG to change "tabular" into "table".   Their concern was just that there were two paragraphs that said almost the same thing with regard to tables but the original had other things as well -- hence it won out.

But if you would like the word "table" to be there -- and I can see where it is more "plain language"  - then I think we might ask them if they could switch the two words.  Tabular is probably more correct but I think "table rows and columns" also is OK with slightly different meaning. (one describing type of data and the other describing a structure -- but both meaning the same thing.


What do others think?



Gregg
--------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Director Trace R&D Center
Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
and Biomedical Engineering
University of Wisconsin-Madison

Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International
and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project
http://Raisingthefloor.org   ---   http://GPII.net








On Jul 9, 2012, at 10:15 PM, Crowell, Pierce wrote:


If they were repetitive, then they selected the lesser of the two.  The result is now we lost the only mention of the word "table" in all of the INTENT sections.  At least we still have his cousin "tabular."

I'm easy on closing AI-23 if we are willing to add "row, column, and header" to the examples in 4.1.2.  I really wanted it in 1.3.1, but if there is no clarity there, and I see no added clarity in this outcome, then a reference in the examples list is desired.

Pierce

From: Andi Snow-Weaver [mailto:andisnow@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 3:25 PM
To: public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Subject: ACTION-23 - WCAG response to request to modify intent for 1.3.1 Info and Relationships


Last week the WCAG working group reviewed our request to modify the intent for 1.3.1 as follows:
Replace the current last paragraph which reads:

There may also be cases where it may be a judgment call about what information should appear in text and what would need to be directly associated. However, wherever possible it is necessary for the information to be programmatically determined rather than providing a text description before encountering the table.

With the following paragraphs  ( a new one plus the paragraph above slightly edited)

Structure and relationships are often visually perceivable. For instance, when information is presented in tabular form the visual structure and relationship of one cell to another, the structure and relationship of one cell to all the cells sharing the same row or column, and the relationship of one cell to the row and/or column header are necessary for understanding information in a table. Having this structure and these relationships programmatically determined or available in text ensures that information important for comprehension will be perceivable to all.

There may also be cases where it may be a judgment call as to whether the relationships should be programmatically determined or be presented in text. However, when technologies support programmatic relationships, it is strongly encouraged that information and relationships be programmatically determined rather than described in text.

Per the survey results and the group discussion, the working group feels that the first paragraph is repetitive of what is already in the second paragraph. Instead of adding our first proposed paragraph, they agreed to this resolution:
RESOLUTION: 2nd paragraph gets replaced with "Sighted users perceive structure through various visual cues - headings are often in a larger, bold font separated from paragraphs by blank lines; list items are preceded by a bullet and perhaps indented; paragraphs are separated by a blank line; items that share a common characteristic are organized into tabular rows and columns with their headers; form fields may be positioned as groups that share text labels; a different background color may be used to indicate that several items are related to each other; words that have special status are indicated by changing the font family and /or bolding, italicizing, or underlining them and so on. HAVING THIS STRUCTURE AND THESE RELATIONSHIPS PROGRAMMATICALLY DETERMINED OR AVAILABLE IN TEXT ENSURES THAT INFORMATION IMPORTANT FOR COMPREHENSION WILL BE PERCEIVABLE TO ALL.
With regard to the second paragraph of our proposal, they agreed to this resolution:
RESOLUTION: replace the seventh paragraph with "There may also be cases where it may be a judgment call as to whether the relationships should be programmatically determined or be presented in text. However, when technologies support programmatic relationships, it is strongly encouraged that information and relationships be programmatically determined rather than described in text.
If there are no objections, with these WCAG resolutions, we can close ACTION-23 tomorrow.

Andi