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

RE: content arranged in a sequence that affects meaning

From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 13:24:37 -0500
Message-ID: <6EED8F7006A883459D4818686BCE3B3B012486A3@MAIL01.austin.utexas.edu>
To: "Ben Caldwell" <caldwell@trace.wisc.edu>, "WCAG-WG" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Thanks, Ben.


"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 Ben Caldwell
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 11:58 am
To: WCAG-WG
Subject: content arranged in a sequence that affects meaning



Hello,

At last week's meeting, we resolved to move the following level 3 
success criterion from guideline 3.2 to guideline 1.3:

When content is arranged in a sequence that affects its meaning, that 
sequence can be determined programmatically.

Here's the resolution (from the 13 June minutes):

resolution: Move GL 3.2 Level 3 SC 5 (When content is arranged in a 
sequence that affects its meaning, that sequence can be determined 
programmatically.) to 1.3 because using correct semantics fixes this 
problem. Is there another success criteria that addresses this?

In reviewing the draft, I noticed that the criterion was removed from 
guideline 3.2, but never added to guideline 1.3. Given the questions in 
the resolution about whether there are other other criteria that address

this, I wanted to raise this as an additional question for tomorrow's
call.

I'm not sure if this was considered in the work sessions around 
guideline 1.3 last week or not and was unable to find a resolution that 
indicated that it should have been deleted. So, for now, I've added the 
criterion to guideline 1.3 in the proposed resolutions draft at level 3 
for discussion [1] and have included an editorial note that highlights 
the questions raised in the above resolution.

Thanks,

-Ben

[1] http://tinyurl.com/8np3p
Received on Wednesday, 22 June 2005 18:24:42 UTC

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