W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org > July 2012

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

From: Loïc Martínez Normand <loic@fi.upm.es>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 23:50:21 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJpUyz=wMVp=jn5o_pbGwpcGVBwB_057OPt3ezwfk7CUZZcHiw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Hoffman, Allen" <Allen.Hoffman@hq.dhs.gov>
Cc: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "Crowell, Pierce" <Pierce.Crowell@ssa.gov>, "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>
Dear all,

I agree with the proposal to re-submit to the WCAG-WG changes in the intent
of 1.3.1. And I think that the last edits by Pierce work nicely.

Best regards,
Loïc

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Hoffman, Allen <Allen.Hoffman@hq.dhs.gov>wrote:

>  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
> *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****
>
> ** **
>



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Loïc Martínez-Normand
DLSIIS. Facultad de Informática
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
Campus de Montegancedo
28660 Boadilla del Monte
Madrid
---------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail: loic@fi.upm.es
tfno: +34 91 336 74 11
---------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 9 July 2012 21:50:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 9 July 2012 21:50:49 GMT