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

RE: GL 1.3 vs GL 2.4

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lguarino@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 14:12:46 -0800
Message-ID: <0DAF2B31FBCEB6439F63FA7F91601F7434E9A1@namail3.corp.adobe.com>
To: "John M Slatin" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Is a "navigational feature" a control which is activated by the user and
results in a change in location (for some definition of location)? I get
that sense from your description. 

It fits links, and it could fit something like a button with an action
to change the current location. (If the button brings up a dialog, does
that count?) It could also fit a search button, to pick one of Michael's
earlier examples.

It doesn't fit things like headings, which aren't controls.

Loretta Guarino Reid
lguarino@adobe.com
Adobe Systems, Acrobat Engineering 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John M Slatin [mailto:john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 1:32 PM
> To: Loretta Guarino Reid; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: RE: GL 1.3 vs GL 2.4
> 
> 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...)
> 
> John
> 
> "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
> guidelines.
> 
> The subgroup didn't come to a consensus, but seems to think that we
have
> two
> alternatives:
> 
> 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
> determined
>   * 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
> L1
> 
> 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
> 
>
http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Guideline_1.3#Progr
> amat
> ically_determined_and_Role
> 
> Or
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/dxvlg
> 
> 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 22:12:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:40 GMT