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: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 18:52:22 +0000
To: "Richards, Jan" <jrichards@ocad.ca>
CC: AUWG <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <D4219A0ECCAE794C9ED7DC6F5A4C0CD537B3249395@jupiter.intranet.nomensa.com>
Hi Jan,

You'd suggested:

"B.X.X.X Structured Content Support: Authoring tools support the incorporation of 
document structure by one of the following:
   (a) Auto-generated structure: Author entries are incorporated into 
       document structure that is automatically generated by the authoring tool, or

   (b) Author mechanisms: Editing-views include options for adding document structure."

That's good, do we need to narrow the scope though? Unless I'm missing something an authoring tool that creates non-markup content could not fulfil that guideline?

For example:
B.X.X.X Structured Content Support: Where edited content can include markup with programmatically determinable relationships, the authoring tool supports the incorporation of document structure by one of the following:...

A slight tangent was:

AC: The use-case I come across most is web based WYSIWYG editors (e.g. TinyMCE / CKeditor). Most of these editors allow you to use structural markup (with varying levels of quality), however, a CMS might remove headings so that authors can't mess up their automated accessibility results. (Having no headings passes the old nested-headings tests!)"

JR: OK but it would fail WCAG2.0 2.4.10 Section Headings

AC: Yes, the resulting content would fail WCAG. However, without a guideline like the one above, the authoring tool wouldn't fail ATAG for removing the heading control / drop-down from the interface.

Kind regards,

Received on Tuesday, 22 February 2011 18:53:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:00 UTC