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

RE: Is 1.3.5 underrated?

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lguarino@adobe.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:20:14 -0800
Message-ID: <0DAF2B31FBCEB6439F63FA7F91601F74573E2C@namail3.corp.adobe.com>
To: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>, "Guide Lines list" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

I agree with Bruce. Can we move this guideline to level 1 or 2?

Loretta Guarino Reid
lguarino@adobe.com
Adobe Systems, Acrobat Engineering 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bailey, Bruce
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 7:39 AM
> To: Guide Lines list
> Subject: Is 1.3.5 underrated?
> 
> 
> This has come up before, but I could not locate a
> comprehensive dialog / summary / conclusion.  Please feel
> free to provide a URL and optional chastisement if I
> missed it.
> 
> The requirement for a logical reading order is contained
> in two checkpoints from WCAG 1.0:
> 
> 5.3:  Do not use tables for layout unless the table makes
> sense when linearized.  Otherwise, if the table does not
> make sense, provide an alternative equivalent (which may
> be a linearized version).  [Priority 2]
> 
> 6.1:  Organize documents so they may be read without style
> sheets.  For example, when an HTML document is rendered
> without associated style sheets, it must still be possible
> to read the document.  [Priority 1.  A sufficient
> scrambled reading order, probably owing to CSS used for
> layout without consideration of the order of content in
> source, is generally held to be a violation of this
> checkpoint.]
> 
> The requirement for a logical reading order is reflected
> only by one WCAG 2.0 success criteria:
> 
> 1.3.5:  When content is arranged in a sequence that
> affects its meaning, that sequence can be programmatically
> determined.  [Level 3]
> 
> I have a two big concerns with this:
> 
> (1)  The priority level seems way too low.  How is the
> requirement for a logical reading order not justified at
> level 1?  I would argue that this is a huge barrier to
> accessibility for web content like Flash and PDF.
> 
> (2)  The associated Common Failures examples make it clear
> that possible problems captured by WCAG 1.0 checkpoints
> 5.3 and 6.1 *are* meant to be addressed by success
> criteria 1.3.5.  As written, IMHO, it does not do so
> explicitly.
> 
> I suggest borrowing some of the "intent" wording for the
> sc (still using "programmatically determined"):
> 
> When content is arranged in a sequence that affects its
> meaning, it must be possible to programmatically determine
> at least one sequence of the content that makes sense.
> 
> But "makes sense" is also too soft, so dipping into intent
> once more:
> 
> When content is arranged in a sequence that affects its
> meaning, it must be possible to programmatically determine
> at least one sequence of the content that preserves a
> reading order needed to perceive meaning.
> 
> I don't care for starting success criteria with "When", so
> I will also offer up the last wording my little group
> arrived at for documents:
> 
> A logical reading order that includes all visual elements
> required for comprehension shall be specified by the
> underlying structure.
> 
> (3)  Tangentially, does WCAG 2.0 forbid layout tables in
> HTML, and if so, at what level?  The earlier mapping
> document tied layout tables only to 4.1 (use technologies
> according to specification) which currently only has 4.1.1
> (parsed unambiguously) which is not the same thing at all.
Received on Tuesday, 13 December 2005 18:19:25 GMT

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