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

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

From: Yvette Hoitink <y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 20:16:20 +0200
To: "'John M Slatin'" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E1DTkte-0007LA-IE@bart.w3.org>

John Slatin wrote:

> Would the following work as a success criterion under 2.4 L1 
> SC2 (replacing the one proposed by Yvette/currently at 2.4 L3 SC1)?
> 
> <proposed>
> The integrity or structure of each authored unit remains 
> intact whenever a collection of authored units is assembled 
> into a delivery unit and whenever a delivery unit is 
> transformed into a perceivable unit.
> </proposed>
> 
> -- or is this trivial/beside the point? Would there be times 
> when an authored unit did *not* remain intact when aggregated 
> into a delivery unit or when the delivery unit is transformed 
> into a perceivable unit?

Personally, I think your new proposal is too specific. It addresses some
cases but the majority of sequencing problems will arise without
aggregation. 

It seems to me like different people have different ideas of what
accessibility problems this success criterion is supposed to address. I
think it would be useful to have some counter-examples that we want to
prevent by having this success criterion to help the discussion. To keep it
simple, I've limited these counter-examples to HTML/CSS.

COUNTEREXAMPLES:

counterexample 1:
<p><span style="float:right">and this is the second part</span><span
style="float:right">This is the first part of the sentence </span></p>

Counterexample 2:
<table>
	<tr>
		<td>&nbsp;</td>
		<td>and this the second</td>
	</tr>
	<tr>
		<td>This is the first part of the sentence</td>
		<td>&nbsp;</td>
	</tr>
</table>

Counterexample 3:
<pre>I love				I don't
     bananas but			like apples.</pre>

Counterexample 4:
<p>Mr. Bigshot said "This product is simply amazing" after he <span
class="pullquote"
style="width:3em;float:right;background-color:red">Bigshot: "This product is
simply amazing"</span> tested it himself.</p>

I think the current (and proposed) wording covers all of these cases. 

Can anyone think of accessibility problems arising from sequencing that are
not covered by this proposal? 
Can anyone think of examples of good web content that fail to meet this
proposed success criterion? 

Now all we have to do is wordsmith until the answer to both these questions
is 'no'!

Yvette Hoitink
Heritas, Enschede, the Netherlands
E-mail: y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl
WWW: http://www.heritas.nl 
Received on Thursday, 5 May 2005 18:16:31 UTC

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