W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2006

RE: Definition of "Relationships"

From: David MacDonald <befree@magma.ca>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 17:22:34 -0400
To: "'Gregg Vanderheiden'" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "'Tim Boland'" <frederick.boland@nist.gov>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000001c6918a$fdde0c60$650fa8c0@home>
The other word I was thinking about was "piece"  

 

"semantic associations between distinct pieces of content"

 

But I really like "distinct chunks of content" and I think it is very
understandable especially with the examples and when considered in context
of the SC. I think trying to dig any deeper may defeat the purpose of
helping web masters understand the SC.

 

"1.3.1 Information and relationships conveyed through presentation can be
programmatically determined, and notification of changes to these is
available to user agents, including assistive technologies."

 

I think the SC itself makes it clear what kind of "semantic associations
between distinct chunks of content" that we are talking about. those that
are *conveyed through presentation*. So if there is a distinct chunk of
material evident in the presentation, it should be evident programmatically.
I think the definition works well in context of the rest of the SC. 

 

I think the current wording of the definition fits the KISS principle. But
if we want to add an example of two that's fine. 

 

Cheers

David MacDonald

 

 

access empowers people...

        ...barriers disable them...

 

www.eramp.com

  _____  

From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 4:18 PM
To: 'Tim Boland'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Definition of "Relationships"

 

Good catch Tim,

 

Hmmmm

 

How do we choose the right word/phrase,  that is technology independent, yet
doesn't sound like it has a secret meaning we don't define. 

 

Part?

Component? 

 

Element - has defined meaning and we don't mean just element.

 


Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
The Player for my DSS sound file is at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
<http://tinyurl.com/cmfd9>  

 

 


  _____  


From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Tim Boland
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 9:41 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Definition of "Relationships"

What objectively determines/measures a "distinct chunk of content" for this
definition (as opposed to alternatives?  Perhaps expand/further define what
is a "distinct chunk of content"?  There are some examples given, but
perhaps more definition is needed?

Thanks and best wishes
Tim Boland NIST

At 10:32 AM 6/16/2006 -0400, you wrote:



I like it&

 

access empowers people...

        ...barriers disable them...

 

www.eramp.com


  _____  


From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] 
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 10:27 AM
To: 'John M Slatin'; 'David MacDonald'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Definition of "Relationships"

 

Agree.

Also talk about form controls

 

 

Hmmmm

 

So maybe something like:

 

 

Definition of *Relationships*:

 

"semantic associations between distinct chunks of content"

 

Examples of chunks that have relationships include: a heading and the
paragraph which follows it; a section title and the subsections that are
within it; a control and its label; the boxes in an organization or flow
chart; and table cells and their headers. 

      

 

Other comments? 


Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
The Player for my DSS sound file is at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
<http://tinyurl.com/cmfd9>  


  _____  


From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of John M Slatin
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 7:59 AM
To: David MacDonald; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Definition of "Relationships"

 

Thanks, David!

 

It might be good to add a non-text example, e.g., "Associations between
positions shown in an organizational chart" or "Associations beteween
decision-points in a flow-chart" or something like that.

 

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.ital.utexas.edu/>
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 David MacDonald 

Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 6:14 PM 

To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org 

Subject: Definition of "Relationships" 

I had an action item with Katie to come up with a definition of
Relationship& 

This is the proposal: 

Definition of *Relationships*: 

"Semantic associations between distinct chunks of content." 

      Example 1: A heading is in relationship to the paragraph which follows
it. 

      Example 2:  A section title is in relationship to the subsections that
are within it. 

----------------------- 

Discussion: 

"Semantic" is another way to say "meaningful" (as per the Wikipaedia
definition of Semantic) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic 

So the definition could also be: 

"Meaningful associations between distinct chunks of content."  But I think
semantic works better. 

"chunks" could be replaced by "portions" or "sections" but I think "chunks"
is very understandable. 

David MacDonald 

access empowers people... 

        ...barriers disable them... 

www.eramp.com 
Received on Friday, 16 June 2006 21:23:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:46 GMT