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

RE: Agenda + [2.4] CORRECT version of 2.4 proposal

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 22:32:40 -0500
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20050505033240.065831CC3DF@m14.spamarrest.com>

Interesting.

I had thought that webbed information was an example of information where
reading order was important to understanding,  but where the order is not
linear.  That is - the reading order changes from moment to moment as you
traverse the web.  But jumping randomly from one node to another
non-connected mode would not be desirable.   Or reading random nodes. 

Hard to get ones head around this.
 
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 John M Slatin
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 10:18 PM
To: Gregg Vanderheiden; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Agenda + [2.4] CORRECT version of 2.4 proposal


Following up on Andi's response to Yvette's proposal to move the current 2.4
L3 SC1 (reading order) to L1 SC2, Gregg wrote:

<blockquote>
I still don't think we have this one nailed yet.  But if the information is
weblike and does not lend itself to a linear order - we don't want to have
an SC that cannot be passed.  At least not at the L1 or L2 level.  

Interesting point.  The current wording of 2.4 L3 SC1--

<blockquote>
1. When content is arranged in a sequence that affects its meaning, that
sequence can be determined programmatically. [I] </blockquote>

Was *intended* (by me; the wording is mine) to exclude the situation Gregg
envisions here, where the content is arranged in such a way that there *is*
no default linear order.  (I presume that at some point the user must be
offered choices about what path(s) are available; how much information is
provided about the paths will vary from situation to situation, as (for
example) in Michael Joyce's hypertext fiction *afternoon, a story( (1987) or
Stuart Moulthrop's *Victory Garden* (1991), both composed using the
hypertext authoring tool Storyspace (which predates the Web by a number of
years).

So I don't think we're trying to prevent authors from creating webs of
linked nodes in which users choose where they want to go and there is no
default order (or if there's a default it's not in any sense a preferred
order-- it's just a default).sequence affects meaning: I think we're trying
to find a way tell authors who *don't* mean to create such webs what they
have to do to help user agents and Ats avoid really stupid mistakes that
would create unnecessary confusion for the user.

OK, no more sentences for me tonight.
John


</blockquote>SC3

"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.utexas.edu/research/accessibility 



-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 9:39 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Agenda + [2.4] CORRECT version of 2.4 proposal



Hi Andi,

I think the wording was changed to support the fact that some content does
not have a single linear or any linear reading order necessarily.  It may be
weblike in structure for example.  

I still don't think we have this one nailed yet.  But if the information is
weblike and does not lend itself to a linear order - we don't want to have
an SC that cannot be passed.  At least not at the L1 or L2 level.  

Not sure where the exact wording came from.  
 
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 Andi Snow-Weaver
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 4:04 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Re: Agenda + [2.4] CORRECT version of 2.4 proposal



Level 1 SC 2: "When content is arranged in a sequence that affects its
meaning, that sequence can be determined programmatically."

- I think there is a problem with the way this is worded. I think this is
supposed to be about the reading order of the elements of a page when they
are rendered by a screen reader or some other technology that renders the
elements in a simple linear order. Is there anything that really affects
reading "order" except layout tables and JavaScript? I don't know of any way
to programmatically specify the reading order of the elements.
- For layout tables, the order is predetermined and the author has to
understand that and simply code the tables so that the content makes sense
when it is read in that predetermined reading order.
- And with content that is displayed due to a JavaScript executing, the new
content has to be located in the HTML code so that the screen reader reads
it correctly in the sequence. For example, if the content displayed by a
JavaScript is physically located in the HTML file at the end of the file,
the screen reader will not read it until it gets to the end regardless of
where the JavaScript caused it to be displayed on the screen. This may make
the page not understandable.
- I am struggling with how to generalize this. I want to say something like
"Order the elements of the delivery unit so that, when read sequentially,
any meaning conveyed by the visual presentation of the delivery unit is
maintained." But does this work in all technologies? I think it works in PDF
but what about other technologies like xForms?

Level 1 SC 3: "For each reference to another delivery unit, a title or
description of that delivery unit can be programatically determined.", I
have two questions:

-  this is already covered in GL 3.2 Level 2 SC 6. Are you proposing that we
have two success criteria that address this or are you proposing that we
remove the GL 3.2 success criteria?

- what is the rationale for moving this to Level 1?

Level 2 SC 1: "Documents that have five or more section headings and are
presented as a single delivery unit include a table of contents with links
to important sections of the document. " is not testable due to the word
"important". Suggest rewording as "Documents that have five or more section
headings and are presented as a single delivery unit include a table of
contents with links each section heading of the document. "

Level 2 SC 3: "Blocks of repeated material are implemented so that they can
be bypassed by people who use assistive technology or who navigate via
keyboard or keyboard interface." needs some work to clarify where the
repeated material is. Navigation menus are not repeated within a single page
but this is what we want people to be able to skip. They are repeated on
each page of a "site". How about something like "Blocks of material that are
duplicated on the delivery units of a Web site domain are implemented so
that they can be bypassed by people who use assistive technology or who
navigate via keyboard or keyboard interface."

Level 3 SC 2: "Images have structure that users can access." is technology
dependent. If you have an image technology that supports "structure", then
Level 1 SC 1 applies.

Level 3 SC 4 and 5: I suggest using the word "organized" instead of
"divided". Divided implies (to me) that that there must be at least two
paragraphs or two headings when one might actually be enough for very short
texts.

I agree that "heading" is the right term but not because it is what is used
in HTML. It is the term used in English grammar. I wonder if this will
translate well to other languages.

Examples: I think the short titles of the examples should tie the example
back to the success criteria it is meant to illustrate. For example, since #
6 is about reading order, something like "Sequential reading order of an
online newsletter". This is a general suggestion that applies to all
examples in the guidelines.

Andi
andisnow@us.ibm.com
IBM Accessibility Center
(512) 838-9903, http://www.ibm.com/able
Internal Tie Line 678-9903, http://w3.austin.ibm.com/~snsinfo
Received on Thursday, 5 May 2005 03:32:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:37 UTC