W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2007

RE: New proposal for SC 2.4.6

From: Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 21:12:26 +0000
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7261AC2A5F73904CA41773C8F00813FF1C73E46F@EA-EXMSG-C309.europe.corp.microsoft.com>
No we meant navigated, which I think is the better concept here; but I'm prepared to be proved wrong.

The idea is that 1.3.3 deals with the case that content needs to be presented in a meaningful order, and this deals with the case that in some cases the navigation order may change the meaning. It is not necessarily the case that the navigation order has to follow the presentation order in order to retain meaning ( tables for example) , although in most cases it probably will.

The more specific clause does sometimes trump the general, but only when the meaning might be compromised. The more general clause covers the idea that things should be navigated consistently with the presentation, but leaves it open to interpretation; I personally think the wording "information and relationships conveyed through presentation" is still a little lax, and un-testable; however now we have one problem instead of two J .

From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: 20 March 2007 19:46
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: New proposal for SC 2.4.6


Interesting.  I think the second one is covered by the first though.   Did you mean 'presented' in the second one?

If you changed   "NAVIGATED"   to  "PRESENTED"   then it seems to cover it better.

Just a quick thought as I run to the plane so I may have missed something.

 -- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.


From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org> [mailto: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org>] On Behalf Of Loretta Guarino Reid
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:00 PM
Subject: New proposal for SC 2.4.6

In reviewing the comments about SC 2.4.6 in last week's survey, we noticed that GL 1.3. deals with similar language and concepts. We developed a proposal to harmonize with those concepts. We suggest breaking the success criterion into two parts, to provide the flexibility in relationships reflected in SC 1.3.1, and to capture the linearization of SC 1.3.3 when it is needed.

We propose moving some of the concrete language from our past proposals into sufficient techniques.

Comments or responses?

Sean and Loretta

SC 2.4.6a If a Web page may be navigated sequentially, focusable components receive focus in an order that follows information and relationships conveyed through presentation.

SC 2.4.6b When the sequence in which content is navigated affects its meaning, a correct navigation sequence can be programmatically determined.
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2007 21:13:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:34:02 UTC