W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2002

Re: action item for the testability of 3.5 (annotating complex information)

From: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:51:12 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020124155711.043fa170@localhost>
To: "Annuska Perkins" <annuskap@microsoft.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Annuska,
thanks for doing this.

you wrote:
>Success criteria 1:
>1. a definition or link to a definition is provided for phrases, words,
>acronyms, and abbreviations specific to a particular community. 

>It is testable. I suggest modifying it to state that all acronyms and
>abbreviations should be defined, not just those specific to a particular
>community.
>
>In response to the issue about how often to provide the definition, I
>think that providing the definition when the term is first used is
>sufficient. If you provided the definition with every occurrence, the
>document could become cumbersome. Redundant links to definitions could
>be distracting, especially if the term is used often.

is your proposal:
a definition or link to a definition is provided for phrases, words, acronyms and abbreviations for the first occurrence.

question:
the first occurrence in the site or on each page?


>Success criteria 2:

>2. a summary is provided for 
...

>Regarding #1 - We need to be clear about what a summary is. 

agreed.

>Does it mean
>referencing the table within the text of the document? 

In other words, summarizing the table within the text of the document? Or are you saying some other reference to the table is made within the text of the document?

My concern with summarizing the table within the text of the document is then there is not an explicit relationship between the summary and the table.

>What if the whole
>page is about one table - is a summary really needed, or does the entire
>page count as the summary?

I think it depends on what the table includes.  If the table is one large set of data, a summary is very useful (sometimes necessary? Jason - do wish to comment further? I remember you having strong feelings about summaries).  If the table is only used for layout I think it is less necessary, but depending on the complexity of the layout could be helpful for someone using a magnifier who has difficulty "wayfinding" in a large table.  Anyone else wish to comment?

I think we need more research here. Anyone wish to volunteer?  Annuska?


>Regarding #2 - The success criteria lists 3 things to summarize. If
>we're saying that only tables with these items need to be summarized, I
>think we should word it like:
>"Provide a summary for tables with nested heading and/or cells that span
>multiple columns or rows. The summary should explain the relationship
>between the cells."

That is more precise. Good.  Although, does it cover everything?  What about number of cells?  If a table has more than 20 cells (a very arbitrary number - more thought ought to be given to the exact number), a summary should be provided.  Or, if it has more than 3 columns and/or rows.  We played with these types of definitions a bit during WCAG 1.0 when trying to define "complex table."  

>Regarding #3 - Deciding whether or not a "relationship is obvious" is
>not testable because it depends on the person evaluating the page. I
>think it should be omitted or put in a "non-testable" section.

Perhaps if the HTML algorithm to determine headings for cells fails to find any headings then the relationship is not obvious.
http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/tables.html#h-11.4.3

>In response to the issue about other applications that require
>summaries, here's a list:
>- Visual representations of data, such as a graph (e.g., a line graph)
>or chart (e.g., bar chart)
>- Diagrams (e.g., network topology)
>
>These items should be supported with a summary to explain their context
>or purpose. 

I second Jason's question, is this covered by checkpoint 1.1?

Thanks,
--wendy


-- 
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium 
web accessibility initiative
seattle, wa usa
/--
Received on Friday, 25 January 2002 12:48:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:18 GMT