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

Review of open issues for GL 1.3

From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 19:37:06 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

Below are the open (new or pending) issues for guideline 1.3 

The following issues can be CLOSED.

795. Level 1 success criteria should not prohibit short simple text
* Stated that the Level 1 SC (mid 2004) prohibits simple text files even if 
they are quite accessible. L1 SC should be limited to things that really 
create a barrier.
* CLOSE with comment: "Example 4 of SC 1.3.1 in 'Understanding WCAG 2' 
explains some formatting conventions for text documents so that structure 
can be programmatically determined. (The Guidelines document no longer 
contains examples: they were moved to 'Understanding WCAG 2.0' and most 
were significantly reworded.)"

1088. Add an example to Guideline 1.3, SC2
* Reviewer asks to add an example about required form fields.
* CLOSE with comment: "The first example for SC 1.3.1 in 'Understanding 
WCAG 2' is about required form fields. (The Guidelines document no longer 
contains examples: they were moved to 'Understanding WCAG 2.0' and most 
were significantly reworded.)"

1145. location as a factor in accessibility of content
* Asks to add a new SC similar to JIS X 8341-3, 5.5.b).
* CLOSE with comment: "This issue is addressed by the new success criterion 
1.3.6: 'Information required to understand and operate content does not 
rely on shape, size, visual location, or orientation of components.' and by 
techniques and common failures for this success criterion in 'Understanding 
WCAG 2.0'."

1339. GL 1.3 wording hard to understand
* Reviewer finds a previous version of 1.3.1 hard to understand because of 
the definition of "programmatically determined".
* CLOSE because "programmatically determined" is also the subject of issue 
1309 (duplicate issue).

1350. GL 1.3, Example 1 conflicts with usability
* Example 1 for GL 1.3 in a previous draft could be interpreted as 
suggesting that it is OK to flag up mandatory fields only after submission.
* CLOSE with comment: "The wording of the first example for success 
criterion 1.3.1 in 'Understanding WCAG 2.0' addresses this issue. (The 
Guidelines document no longer contains examples: they were moved to 
'Understanding WCAG 2.0' and most were significantly reworded.)"

The following issues can be CLOSED.

1609. 1.3 L3 SC1 recommend removing the When clause
* Reviewer asks to remove the when clause in SC 1.3.5 because he can't 
think of real-world examples where reordering does not affect meaning.
* REJECT and CLOSE with comment: "The intent for success criterion 1.3.5 in 
'Understanding WCAG 2.0' gives an example where reordering does not affect 
meaning. The order of a navigation list with regard to main content 
(example not in 'Understanding WCAG 2.0') does not affect the meaning 
either. In the example of the explicitly unordered list (in the reviewer's 
mail), the order of the items does not affect their meaning, it affects 
only the meaning of content that refers to these items by their order in 
the list (e.g. "the fifth item in the list below"), and that is not an 
accessibility issue."

1610. using color to highlight
* Reviewer says that using color to highlight required or missing fields 
helps users who give a document a quick visual scan.
* CLOSE. The comment is not relevant to SC 1.3.5. (Should we add a note on 
color contrast to the first example of SC 1.3.2 and 1.3.4 - about required 

506. clarify definition of structure
* "Structure" needs to be clarified (difference between structure of code 
and layout of information).
* CLOSE with comment: "The new defintion of structure in the Guidelines and 
'Understanding WCAG 2.0' addresses this."

603. Proposed wording for Guideline 1.3
* Proposals to reword the guideline text.
* CLOSE with Wendy's comment: "The comments are about the Guideline itself. 
The success criteria clarify and
expand on the concept in the guideline text. further, the guides to the success
criteria provide more information about sufficient techniques."

604. proposed wording for first SC under 1.3, level 1
* Proposals to reword L1 SC1 (which maps to current SC 1.3.1).
* CLOSE: OBE, addressed by 'Understanding WCAG 2.0' (and some proposals 
were technology-specific).

938. Clarify language in Guideline 1.3, especially examples
* Wording of examples should be simpler; note about 'HTML-specific' seems 
* CLOSE: all of this has been addressed in 'Understanding WCAG 2.0'.

1333. 1.3 SC2 requires two presentations?
* GL 1.3 L2 SC1 (November 2004 draft) "sounds like we have two possible 
presentations when we actually should only need one that incorporates color 
and beyond".

1496. 1.3 L1 SC3 - describe functional outcome and remove examples
* Proposal for rewording, resulted from report on the impact of not setting 
* CLOSE: addressed in previous draft (OBE).

1497. 1.3 L1 SC2 - describe functional outcome and remove specific examples 
from SC
* Proposal for rewording, resulted from report on the impact of not setting 
* CLOSE: addressed in previous draft (OBE).

The following issues can be closed after a CHANGE.

796. Describe how 1.3 benefits people
* Reviewer says we need to describe how this guideline benefits people with 
cognitive, physical, hearing, and visual disabilities.
* "Understanding WCAG 2" contains benefits for each success criterion in 
this guideline and these describe benefits for people with cognitive, 
hearing, and visual disabilities, but not for people with physical 
disabilities. Can we come up with something?

1608. 1.3 L2 SC2 the wording is flawed
* Reviewer says that 1.3.4 should read "... is also conveyed through 
another visual means that does not depend on the user's ability to 
differentiate colors" instead of "... is visually evident when color is not 
* The proposed wording creates greater consistency with SC 1.3.2. This 
could go into a survey.

1735. GL 1.3 Example: Form example should use select control
* Example 3 for GL 1.3 (now example 3 for SC 1.3.1) is about check boxes 
instead of the select control, which has less accessibility issues.
* REJECT or consider changing the example.

The following issues should be left OPEN

1309. Clarify definition of programmatically determined
* The issue refers to the definition of "programmatically determined" in an 
older draft,
* but a new discussion started on the mailing list after the 23 November 
2005 draft: 
The most recent proposal is
"can be recognized by user agents, including assistive technologies", i.e. 
without reference to the baseline.

1605. title of Guideline 1.3* Reviewer states that the success criteria 
addresses separation of information and presentation, but not 
functionality, so "functionality" can be deleted from the guideline text.
* True, the success criteria do not mention functionality. Separation of 
functionality from structure and presentation sounds like "Unobtrusive 
JavaScript" (http://www.onlinetools.org/articles/unobtrusivejavascript/, 
http://adactio.com/atmedia2005/, http://www.sitepoint.com/books/dhtml1/, 
http://domscripting.com/, etcetera). We could try to extract some 
technology-independent functional outcomes from these technology-specific 
techniques, or consider deleting "functionality" from the guideline text.

1607. When information is conveyed by color
* (a) Reviewer proposes to add "visual" to SC 1.3.2, so it becomes "... the 
information is also conveyed through another visual means ..."
   (b) Reviewer proposes to remove "the color can be programmatically 
determined or" from SC 1.3.2.
* (a) Reject the first part, because the concern seems to be already 
covered by other success criteria and guidelines (1.3.1, 1.1 and 1.4).
   (b) Reject the second part because (if my memory is reliable) this was 
discussed in a previous telecon (where this SC was in a survey), where this 
did not get consensus. (?) This needs to be checked before we can close it.

1705. association between guideline and examples unclear
* (a) Examples represent implementation of structure, but it is not clear 
how they represent separation from presentation.
   (b) Example 2 about associating headers with data cells might fit better 
in GL 2.4.
* (a) Examples that illustrate separation could be added, or refer to CSS 
   (b) Example for SC 1.3.1 is about a bus schedule and is more appropriate 
here than in 2.4.


Christope Strobbe

Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on 
Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51

Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm
Received on Thursday, 8 December 2005 18:39:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:41 GMT