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

[2.4] List of issues addressed by 27 October proposed wording

From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:59:20 -0500
Message-ID: <6EED8F7006A883459D4818686BCE3B3B2943D4@MAIL01.austin.utexas.edu>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
The following list contains most of the open issues listed in the issue
summary for Guideline 2.4 and indicates how I believe the proposed
wording for Guideline 2.4 that I sent to the list a few minutes ago
addresses these issues.  The complete list, including issues that have
been closed and those tht are pending, is available via a link from the
8 October internal working draft [1] or directly at [2].


*        #319 Tab order: revision does not use the phrase "logical tab

*        370 (prposed wording eliminates word- and page-count as
triggers for requirements)

*        416 "sites" vs. Web applications: proposed wording addresses
this issue by substituting "content" and/or "perceivable units" for

*        434 Should be "core": Comment refers to old schema that divided
between core and extended. Presumably though both Germany and SIDRR
would prefer to see some of this at L1. That issue is not resolved by
this proposal; however, it may be resolved by 1.3 L1 SC1 Structures and
relationships within the content can be determined programmatically.
The concern  expressed by our colleagues in Germany and Spain about
requirements being triggered by word- or page-count is resolved by
eliminating length as a trigger for requirements in 2.4; the same would
seem to be true for JIS comments regarding how length is determined
(Japanese uses character-count, not word-count), but the proposed
wording does not use length as a trigger for these requirements.

*        441: I think the proposed wording addresses WKC concerns as
well- will check with W to find out

*        488 (table headers, etc.): resolved: covered under 1.3 

*        491: comments about length-triggers, ToC: resolved- new wording
eliminates length triggers, raises possibility of user agent being able
to derive ToC, etc.

*        564: US Access Board comment that it isn't clear what problem
2.4 tries to address: may be resolved by clarifying focus on navigation
through content plus better informative material (i.e., Benefits and
Examples) plus General Techniques.  The 27 October proposal does not
include new Benefits and Examples, but these are in preparation, and
General Techniques for 2.4 is nearly complete.  will need to check with
the Access Board after full revision to see if we've addressed their

*        633: CKW prposed rewording- this seems to be a duplicate of an
earlier issue, and I think it's been resolved- check with Wendy to see


*        637: proposes what is in the 8 October draft for 2.4 L3 SC 2
Diagrams have structure... Proposed wording broadens "diagrams" to
"images" so as not to unduly restrict use of SVG

*        675 importance of user control: resolved, I think: refers to
older draft (1.5), and concerns are addressed by combination of 1.3 and
2.4. Reference to UAAG 1.0 may also address this concern.

*        676: OBE - referes to an example that no longer exists

*        679 pause before voicing headers: OBE - not relevant to 2.4,
though it might be a good idea for a (future) CSS technique on auditory

*        691 what is meant by "move through the content": the proposed
wording for 2.4 does not include this phrase- instead it says "find
content" and "identify location within content" - should ask Greg Lounay
(sp?) if this resolves the concern  Again, UAAG may help as well.

*        760 (structural elements): resolved- term "structural elements"
does not appear in current or proposed wording for 2.4; however,
definition of structure (#506, if I remember correctly) hasn't been
fully resolved, at least I don't think so.



*        806- Web applications plus length issues. I think the proposed
wording resolves Andi Snow-Weaver's concern. It now says "Content" has
explicit structure (not *documents*) and ToC is one possibility for
*documents* that appear as single perceivable units (not true for apps,
usually). Check with Andi. Other comment concerns length; resolved by
elimination of length as trigger for requirements.

*        807 non-hierarchical relationships: I agree that current
wording is redundant with 1.3 L1 SC1; proposed wording deletes this SC
(L3 SC3)

*        829: Linear reading order should be level 1. Not resolved-
proposed wording still has this at L3, but generalizes it in such a way
that it could perhaps be moved to L1 or L2 without too much trouble. It
could go at L1 because the SC is restricted only to places where
sequence matters (though I'm not sure the wording says that at this

*        859 Frames included in 2.4 L3 SC about perceivable units with
titles? Not sure, may be complicated by "perceivable unit" since that
might include the frameset rather than the individual frames within it.

*        884 Logical tab order is subjective: resolved: proposed wording
calls for tab order to follow sequences and relationships within the
content, eliminates term "logical"

*        946: need examples. Agreed, pending.

*        948 example 5, suggestion to reword example. Agree that work is
necessary, this is pending.

*        955 ToC should include information about presentation modes.
Not sure I understand the request.  It comes from the Royal National
Institute for the Deaf and refers to a June 2003 WD that still uses
terms like "Best practices" and "considerations." According to Wendy's
notes, the ToC was then a consideration; it is now a L2 requirement, but
neither the current draft nor the proposed wording says anything about
presentation modes. Could this be handled under General Techniques? Do
we know what RNID means here?

*        994 grammatical fix to example 1 by RNID. Agreed; if we retain
the example we should make this fix.

*        1008 assertion rather than requirement: Ian Jacobs challenges
current wording which requires a statement that various things (incl.
breaking up text into paragraphs) have been "considered." The prposed
wording resolves this issue by deleting the requirement for an assertion
and instead making use of paragraphs a L3 requirement.

*        1016 When is a site map required? Andy Bud (sp?) proposes that
site map is required for a site of any size if and when it's true that
you can't access every page on the site directly from every page on the
site. Proposed wording doesn't include this, might be a good idea. Not
resolved yet.

*        1046 comments on navigation-mechanisms. Harvey Bingham (?)
suggests that 2.4 wd be the place to call for search engine. Resolved by
proposed wording. Concern about testability of "logical tab order"
resolved by proposed wording. Suggestion to add lists and tables to the
"considerations" under L3 SC3 are covered by 1.3 (IMHO), so I consider
this resolved; should check with Harvey to confirm.

*        1090 Examples needed and clarification needed around 2.1: This
issue seems to refer to 2.1 and not 2.4, so seems not to be relevant

*        1091: Definition for more abstract event handler: Refers to 2.1
not 2.4

*        1102 Changing menus to present them in a different order
impractical and expensive. OBE- not required in proposed wording. Refers
to an item under 3.2 about position of search forms, so tangentially
related to 2.4 call for search engine (2.4 L2). Not relevant to 2.4

*        1130 Add clear in-page link to important content.  From WWAAC.
The proposed wording probably would not resolve this issue for WWAAC
since they want an explicit link that "looks for" important content such
as full sentences, etc., to facilitate  quick access to alternative
representations of content. Skip links are covered in Genreal Techniques
and would satisfy this SC but are not *required* in order to satisfy the
SC. Still open, pending discussion with WWAAC. An explicit link might go
at L3?

*        1131 Consider number, location, and focus of links on a page.
WWAAC proposes limiting number of links to 10-12 per page to support
scanning techniques and allow links to be associated with function keys.
Also propose avoiding embedded links, instead placing them at end of
sentences , or using bulleted or numbered lists. They also suggest
distinguishing between in-page links and those that go to other pages.
They are aware that this departs from standard hypertext practice..  Not
resolved by proposed wording.  Some of these might be addressed as user
agent issues (e.g., AT could look for embedded links and move them to
end of paragraph. Severe limitation on number of links might be proposed
as good practice in General Techniques with explicit comment about how
such limits benefit people who use AAC, screen readers, etc., as per
notes from WWAAC.








*        1132: Provide progressive complexity for both page and site
content.  Proposed by WWAAC. Not addressed in the proposed wording for
2.4; have been thinking of it as a 3.1 issue but it could be a L3
requirement under 2.4 since it goes to navigation.

*        1136 Reduce number and complexity of links, indicate necessary
links.  From City University of NY- call to limit number of links
(similar to WWAAC) not addressed. Call to identify important links
(related to but not same as WWAAC) not resolved by proposed wording.
Call for consistent navigation is addressed under 3.2? though that
doesn't deal with hierarchy issue. Call to make hierarchy of importance
clear might be covered under ToC and site map. Call for use of
structural markup to indicate structure of pages covered under 2.4 L2 SC
1 (in proposed wording) and 1.3 L1 SC1. Call for informative page titles
is resolved by proposed and current wording. Preserve links to home page
doesn't seem to be specifically an accessibility issue (?). Eradication
of deep structures problematic, not addressed.

*        1137 Dividing material into manageable chunks should be given
higher priority. Not resolved by current or proposed wording.

*        1147: >50,000 words or 50 perceived pages. Resolved by
eliminating length as trigger.

*        1169 Why 8 or more links as trigger for bypass requirement?
Calls for supporting documentation for this number. Not resolved.

*        1214 All SCs that resemble Section 508 Web requirements should
be moved to L1 for harmonization. Not resolved- skip to main content
link still currently at L2 (unless satisfied by UA).

*        1230 Issue summary- action items from October face to face...
here we go!

[1] 8 October internal working draft:  http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/
[2] Issues for Guideline 2.4

"Good design is accessible design."

Dr. John M. Slatin, Director 
Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin 
FAC 248C 
1 University Station G9600 
Austin, TX 78712 
ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524 
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu 
Web  <http://www.ital.utexas.edu/>

Received on Thursday, 28 October 2004 04:59:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:51 UTC