W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2004

RE: Issue 556 and 669

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 00:36:57 -0500
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <auto-000038429939@spamarrest.com>

Hi Tom, all,

Regarding
1. "Structures and relationships of the content can be derived
programmatically (for example, through a markup or data model)

One question I have always wondered.   

If structure or relationships can be determined through automated
heuristics, would that count too?    If so, then having the headers all
"look" like headers (and be consistent within levels) would satisfy if
common tools or converters were available that could 'determine'  the
headers, lists, etc by just evaluating a page and its visual formatting.
After all, that is all that the sighted person has.

If so, then a page with no markup and only visual formatting could pass
Level 1 of 1.3.  

Is there any reason it shouldn't?  If there were common and / or free tools
that would do such analysis? 

 
Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Tom Croucher
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2004 3:46 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Cc: wendy@w3.org
Subject: Issue 556 and 669


Dear Gang,

After a lot of dicussion between Wendy, Matt May and myself here is a
proposal 
for changes to the level one success criteria for guideline 1.3. [1]

Bugs 556 [2] and 669 [3] are associated with these changes.

The proposal splits success criteria one into two, and removes the 
differentiation of hierarchical and non-hierarchical relationships. This 
gives the first two sucess criteria of guideline 1.3 as:

1. "Structures and relationships of the content can be derived 
programmatically (for example, through a markup or data model)"

2. "Differentitation of content to imply additional meaning or stress, such
as 
the types of emphasis commonly denoted by bold or italics, can be dervived 
programmatically."

The current sucess criteria two would also become success criteria three. 
There is an issue with the words "imply additional meaning" and testibility.


While exploring this issue we discovered issues surrounding some
technologies 
and their ability to natively denote semantic types such as paragraphs, 
headers and lists. SVG for example appears to have no semantic elements, 
although Wendy is talking to Dean from the SVG group about ways to proceed 
with techniques for SVG in this area. There is a lot to look at with this 
issue for the techniques taskforce.


[1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#content-structure-separation>

[2] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=556> 

[3] <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=669>


Regards,

--
Tom Croucher
Co-founder, Netalley Networks LLP
http://www.netalleynetworks.com
Received on Monday, 17 May 2004 01:37:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:30 GMT