W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > January to March 2011

RE: Proposal to remove "B.2.1.1" (was B.1.1.1)

From: Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocad.ca>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 12:28:12 -0500
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
CC: AUWG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F2C77FB59A1A4840A01EF5F59B1826E20A30D515EB@ocadmail.ocad.ca>
Hi Alastair,

> Level A:   Provide the ability to use structural markup.

This could work, but will need a definition.

> Level AA:  	Default to structural markup.

Do you think in most cases this means some amount of auto-generation by the tool, in which case B.1.1.2 might cover it? 

> Level AAA: 	Enforce structural markup.

ATAG2 doesn't usually require enforcement, might it not be enough that adding structure is possible (level A above) PLUS our existing checking SC?

Also, another SC that has bearing here is: 
B.2.2.1 Accessible Option Prominence (WCAG): If authors are provided with a choice of authoring actions for achieving the same authoring outcome (e.g. styling text), then options that will result in accessible web content (WCAG) are at least as prominent as options that will not.

Cheers,
Jan

-- 
(Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc.
jrichards@ocad.ca | 416-977-6000 ext. 3957 | fax: 416-977-9844
Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) | http://inclusivedesign.ca/
Faculty of Design | OCAD University


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]
> Sent: February 11, 2011 6:09 PM
> To: Richards, Jan
> Cc: AUWG
> Subject: Re: Proposal to remove "B.2.1.1" (was B.1.1.1)
> 
> On 11 Feb 2011, at 21:25, Richards, Jan wrote:
> > "Enforcement" of structural relationships in general is tricky
> because recognizing relationships often requires human judgement (e.g.,
> a line of text in bold 18 pt font might just be something an author
> REALLY wanted to emphasize, not a heading)
> 
> I would suggest though that if a tool can provide that functionality,
> it can also provide headings. I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to
> create a particular styling without structural markup (at least until
> level AAA), but that if you can create that styling that you can (level
> A), or default to (level AA) structural markup.
> 
> I.e. the tool shouldn't have to make a judgement, but it should:
> Level A:    	Provide the ability to use structural markup.
> Level AA:  	Default to structural markup.
> Level AAA: 	Enforce structural markup.
> 
> 
> > The best a tool can usually do is attempt to check with heuristics,
> which is why I suggested things might be covered by B.3.1.1 Checking
> Assistance (WCAG) and B.3.2.1 Repair Assistance (WCAG)
> 
> But there is nothing *at all* in ATAG to suggest that it should have
> headings!
> 
> The checking aspect is good, but there has to be something that
> suggests or enforces that a tool should provide the ability to apply
> structural markup. It might be dependant on a certain level of
> functionality, but we have to have something.
> 
> 
> > Here's another thought....
> >
> > What if I type this as my FB status update using hard returns:
> 
> Facebook only allows plain text. If it allowed (rich) text formatting
> it could (and should) provide structural markup.
> 
> 
> > For me, the real problem are tools that represent themselves as
> creating structured markeup (e.g., headings) but then fail to use
> structural markup underneath.
> 
> Yep, me to. If you provide the ability to create what looks like
> headings, you should provide the (default?) ability to use heading
> markup.
> 
> That's why I was previously suggesting an approach where if you *can*
> create an issue for WCAG (e.g. 1.3.x) that it allows or enforces
> (depending on the level) the author to create WCAG complaint content.
> 
> If writing something for that in general terms leaves it too open (and
> I suspect it might!), then can we aim it at structural markup (WCAG
> 1.3.x), when the tool has sufficient functionality that authors could
> create an issue in the first place?
> 
> I'll try and make it into a proposal / text for the survey comment over
> the weekend.
> 
> -Alastair
Received on Monday, 14 February 2011 17:28:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 14 February 2011 17:28:46 GMT