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

RE: GL 1.3 vs GL 2.4

From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 15:31:48 -0600
Message-ID: <6EED8F7006A883459D4818686BCE3B3B02505A59@MAIL01.austin.utexas.edu>
To: "Loretta Guarino Reid" <lguarino@adobe.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

After reading Andi's response (which I now can't find!), I'm still
concerned about "navigational features" in technologies other than HTML.

Even if it's true that links are the *only* navigational features in
(X)HTML (and are thus covered by other SC), are there other technologies
where that isn't true?

For example, I've never heard JAWS refer to a link when reading Flash
content-- it always talks about "buttons," which may or may not be
navigational (sometimes a button just makes something happen, like
playing an animation). Are there navigational features in, say, MathML
or SVG that would not be covered by satisfying GL 1.3?

(Not a rhetorical question; I don't know the answer...)


"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 Loretta Guarino Reid
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 9:14 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: GL 1.3 vs GL 2.4

The relationship between GL 1.3 and 2.4 emerged at the Face 2 Face
meeting again, as well as questions about what is sufficient to meet the
The subgroup didn't come to a consensus, but seems to think that we have
Option 1)
  * GL 1.3 L1 SC1 is interpreted to mean that any structure that can be
expressed in a technology is expressed in a way that is programmatically
  * GL 1.3 L2 SC (optional, new): requires that structure is used to
express certain relationships in the content, e.g. tables
 * GL 2.4 only addresses explicit navigation elements (i.e. links) and
the use of structure for navigation is assumed to be addressed by GL 1.3

Option 2)
  * GL 1.3, L1, SC 1 requires that structure be programmatically
determined when information is lost in the linearization of the content.
  * GL 1.3, L2 adds a success criterion that requires all structure that
can be expressed in the content
  * GL 2.4, L1 only addresses explicit navigation elements

In both cases, we would remove reference to navigating by structure from
GL 2.4. GL 2.4 appears to address recognizing links programmatically.
Case 1 seems to be closer to what most other Success Criteria were
assuming from GL 1.3.

Case 2 is closer to the requirements of WCAG1, which only requires table
mark-up at level 1 and requires other structural markup at level 2.
Additional discussion can be found at



Does the working group want to have a survey on which of these options
to adopt? Or include a discussion of the options in our working draft
and solicit public feedback?
Received on Tuesday, 1 November 2005 21:32:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:56 UTC