W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

RE: Issue summary for 1.3: "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation"

From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 12:25:42 -0500
Message-ID: <6EED8F7006A883459D4818686BCE3B3B7AE23D@MAIL01.austin.utexas.edu>
To: "Joe Clark" <joeclark@joeclark.org>, "WAI-GL" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Esteemed colleague John Slatin says thanks very much to esteemed
colleague Joe Clark for summary well-- and quickly!-- done.
<grin>
John


"Good design is accessible design." 
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/


 



-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Joe Clark
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 11:53 am
To: WAI-GL
Subject: Issue summary for 1.3: "Ensure that information, functionality,
and structure are separable from presentation"



One's esteemed colleague John Slatin pointed out that one is expected 
to trawl through the Bugzilla database and figure out which issues 
could be closed with yesterday's proposed wording:

<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0145.html>

Issues related to separation of structure, presentation, and behaviour:

<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/issuereports/content-structure-sepa
ration_issues.php>

A more convenient link for open issues mentioning "1.3" is:
<http://tinyurl.com/9wk3w>

So here we go.


1.    Issue 603 - Proposed wording for Guideline 1.3
         URL: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=603

Four contributors view the original wording of "Information, 
functionality, and structure are separable from presentation" as e.g. 
"too vague" and "quite difficult for many to grasp."

I think that the original wording and my suggested improvement will 
be equally difficult to grasp for Web developers who think that sites 
are visual creatures rather than structural creatures. Accessible 
sites-- at least for traditional HTML-CSS-JS pages-- require nice 
tidy structural markup, or, at the very minimum, something not 
resembling tag soup.

The people who find the separation of structure, presentation, and 
behaviour difficult to grasp are the ones most likely to make 
inaccessible pages. They require a skills upgrade that is readily 
available from free Web sites (including WAI's) and many books.

1a.    Issue 1339 - GL 1.3 wording hard to understand
         URL: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1339

This item reiterates the complaint listed above.

This item could be closed.


2.    Issue 604 - proposed wording for first SC under 1.3, level 1
         URL: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=604

This posting attempts to provide improved wording for a success 
criterion. The wording is overlong and focuses on only certain HTML 
constructs (including the ever-picayune emphasis) and is unaffected 
by altering the wording of the underlying guideline. (That is, the 
proposed success-criteria wording does not improve with the new 
proposed guideline wording.)

2a.   Issue 938 - Clarify language in Guideline 1.3, especially 
examples
         URL: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=938

2b.   Issue 1088 - Add an example to Guideline 1.3, SC2.
         URL: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1088

These postings are a clarification of the proposed success-criteria 
wording and are unaffected by the new guideline wording.

This item could be left open.


3.    Issue 796 - Describe how 1.3 benefits people
         URL: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=796

This single item asks for a statement of who benefits from the 
guideline. We still need that, and the answer will have to do with 
the true function of HTML Web pages and the usefulness of structural 
markup for browsers, adaptive technologies, and later reuse.

This item should be left open.


4.    Issue 1097 - Difference between 2.4 and 1.3 is confusing.
           Also, Table of Contents and sitemap wont always work.
         URL: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1097

This posting complains of overlap and ambiguity with Guideline 2.4, 
"Provide mechanisms to help users find content, orient themselves 
within it, and navigate through it."

The proposed new guideline wording would ease the ambiguity about the 
use of document structures to summarize content; if, in a 
conventional Web page, you're using correct semantic markup like 
headings, your browser or adaptive technology can list those headings 
for you (and create custom on-the-spot tables of contents, another 
requirement in 2.4). We can provide that explanation in the technique.

2.4 really does overlap with 1.3 and places excessive burdens on 
authors who are already creating semantic Web pages.

4a.    Issue 1388 - Don't repeat GL 1.3 SC in GL 2.4
         URL: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1388

A reiteration of the same complaint.

This item should be left open.


5.    Issue 1333 - 1.3 SC2 requires two presentations?
         URL: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1333

>David Poehlman says:
>
>>Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.3 Information presented
>>using color is also available without color and without having to 
>>interpret markup (for example through context or text coding). [V]
>
>This sounds like we have two possible presentations when we actually
>should only need one that incorporates color and beyond?

Structural markup is the correct method that acts as a backup when an 
author shows emphasis through colour or uses colour to indicate part 
of a page. The original technique is incorrect. The proposed new 
guideline wording would take care of the principles involved, though 
the technique needed to be rewritten and, in the interim, has been.

5a.    Issue 1453 - Don't understand General Technique for GL 1.3
           L1 SC3 - using color to convey information
         URL: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1453

A related complaint, also calling for a rewrite of the technique.

5b.    Issue 1496 - 1.3 L1 SC3 - describe functional outcome and
           remove examples
         URL: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1496

This item gives improved wording. (Issue 1497 seems to be a duplicate.)

This item should be closed.


6.    Issue 1350 - GL 1.3, Example 1 conflicts with usability
         URL: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1350

>Catherine Brys says:
>
>Example 1 of Guideline 1.3: Users should be informed of mandatory
>fields before filling out and submitting a form. This example may be 
>interpreted as suggesting that it is ok to flag up mandatory fields 
>after submission.

This item is unaffected by the new guideline wording and can be left
open.


The following item is purely housekeeping and relates to action items 
after an f2f meeting and the like:

    Issue 1225 - Issue Summary for Guideline 1.3 
(content-structure-separation)
         URL: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1225


SUMMARY

Close: 603, 1339, 1333, 1453, 1496, 1497

Leave the rest.

-- 

     Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
     Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
     Expect criticism if you top-post
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2005 17:25:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:36 UTC