W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: 2.4.3, 1.3.2

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 01:19:51 -0500
To: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Cc: adam solomon <adam.solomon2@gmail.com>, Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <408150D9-3825-404A-892F-9BB72549B5D0@trace.wisc.edu>
Adam
I think I see your question.

You are saying  "if H4 is a sufficient technique - what is it sufficient for?"   Most 'sufficient' techniques are 'sufficient to meet this SC'.    In this case  "nothing" would be sufficient if the natural reading order would be a logical reading order.    But changing it like this would 'also be sufficient to meet the SC. 

As to 1.3.2 -- how do you think it would violate 1.3.2?  

1.3.2 only require A logical reading order.  There isn't necessarily "a single logical reading order".   

For tables - there are usually two (or more) logical reading orders.  In fact sometimes I have presented tables in two fashions for accessibility (though that is definitely not required)


Gregg
--------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Director Trace R&D Center
Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
and Biomedical Engineering
University of Wisconsin-Madison

Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International
and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project
http://Raisingthefloor.org   ---   http://GPII.net








On Aug 15, 2011, at 1:11 AM, Loretta Guarino Reid wrote:

> I think you are saying that because the default tab order would conform to WCAG, there is no need for a technique that changes the tab order.
> 
> But changing the tab order is permissible under WCAG as long as the resulting order "makes sense". And if the author thinks that changing the tab order improves the usability, we want to make it clear that this still conforms. So although the author did not need to change the tab order in any of the H4 examples, changing it in these ways does not violate WCAG.
> 
> Is there something different about tabindex in HTML5? If not, we may not need an additional technique. We may just need to see whether H4 applies to HTML5, as well, or can be modified so that it is clear that it also applies to HTML5.
> 
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 11:03 PM, adam solomon <adam.solomon2@gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess I am just missing something. I still feel that sufficient techniques, though not being the only option for satisfying a success criterion, do in fact come to correct some deficiency in the web page. Sure, there are other ways to do it, but the deficiency needs to be addressed one way or the other. In H4, there is no deficiency by WCAG standards. Since the reading order is acceptable (if it weren't, we couldn't use this technique anyway since it violates 1.3.2), the focus order must also be acceptable by definition, and the added benefit of reading one person at a time in the bride/groom example adds no WCAG success to the web page, and addresses no WCAG deficiency.
> If you all still think that this is a valid technique, then I will draft the html5 technique in accordance with this one, and hopefully have it ready for this week's meeting.
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com> wrote:
> Adam, I am still having trouble understanding why you think the inclusion of the HTML tabindex technique is a problem. 
> 
> I think you are claiming that it is unnecessary? That it is always possible to use a different technique to satisfy the success criterion? Am I understanding that correctly?
> 
> Loretta
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 10:46 PM, adam solomon <adam.solomon2@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sailesh,
> If one would expect to fill out the form one person at a time, would the default table layout (not taking into consideration focus order) not violate 1.3.2? After all, the programmatically determined reading order would read the cells of the table row by row, not person by person. If so, then this is not a sufficient technique. 
> We must then conclude that there is no violation of 1.3.2, and the author's tabindexing is only a preference, in which a case this technique is totally irrelevant.
> Either way, there is a problem. 
> 
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 6:07 AM, Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Loretta,
> In principle, if you content:
> >But the use of H4 is not required for SC 2.4.3...
> Then why is it listed as a sufficient technique?
> 
> Because it is sufficient. You may use it, but you may use some other sufficient technique.
>  
> Adam,
> Well in that example of groom and bride, without tabindex, one may content that reading order is meaningful. But if one navigates across fields row-wise, it does affect meaning or operation. As I said in my last email, the intent is not to compare first names but actually enter data into a form. I imagine most would want to be done with data for one person then  input data for the next. While filling out paper forms too,I'd complete the form for person#1 and then person#2 and not fill out first name for person#1 then jump to form for the other chap and fill out his first name. That is not logical. On a Web page the fields may be placed next to each other visually but they are meant to be navigated "logically" for person#1 and then #2. It is not the author's choice or reading  order... the author is constrained by layout / design and must use tabindex (h4) to ensure navigation does not affect operation.
> Sailesh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 15 August 2011 06:20:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 15 August 2011 06:20:22 GMT