W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > July to September 2000

Re: request for intergroup coordination

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:41:47 -0500
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20000719143416.012b7ef0@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, "Chairs of the WCA, UA, ER-IG, ER-WG and PF groups" <w3c-wai-cg@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Response in JRG:

>Discussion:
>
>The WCA and UA working groups met in joint session earlier and decided "use
>the MAP element, and not a reserved CLASS value, to group the 'groups of
>related links' discussed in WCAG Checkpoint 13.6.
>
>There appears to be some divergence of opinion as to whether that meeting
>identified special UA processing for these MAP elements as opposed to other
>major structural elements or not.  WCA and UA could clarify on this point.

JRG: The UA group has not been as a group particularly interested in having 
a separate checkpoint(s) for access to markup that is used to indicate 
navigational links.  But that was before we have been working on the 
minimal requirements for each checkpoint.  It maybe of some interest in UA 
to discuss this again.  But I hesitate do to the current number of open 
issues the group is trying to resolve.


>I believe that based on what PF has seen as possible extensions across the
>variety of XML applications, and progress since the joint meeting in the UA
>group, that it is worth reopening this issue for further consideration.
>For example, if the group of related links is isolated within its own
>subtree within the parse tree, and the function of this subtree is made
>clear to the user by an appropriate TITLE attribute, is there "reasonable
>accomodation" justification for yet-more-specific functionality.  And, is
>that general functionality not more critical to the accessibility of web
>content in the large than any more specific processing for the more
>specific class of subtree?

JRG: The use of TITLE in XML was not discussed.  My understanding that for 
XML is that the use of schemas will allow links to be identified as 
navigational links.  I don't know a lot about schemas, so I am trusting the 
people who are advocating this approach to future needs for indicating 
navigational links.

>There is at least one coordination issue here, as the specific AERT
>technique at issue hangs on the interpretation of an agreement between WCA
>and UA working groups.  So those groups should be consulted for clarification.

JRG: MAP was the markup identified in HTML to indicate a group of 
navigational links.


>There is a potential competion for space on the "list of accomodation
>demands" between strategy built around MAP elements and more general
>structural navigation strategies.  The latter are exemplified by the PF
>consideration of what would be an accessible SVG document.  The general
>strategy falls in an area where WCA and PF have failed so far to define who
>leads and who follows on what sort of subtopics, so there is a second
>reason why there is a coordination issue here.  So this issue involves both
>(WCA and/or PF) and UA at least.  And ER for the AERT impact.

JRG: Markup for non-HTML technologies would be of interest to the UA group.


Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
MC-574
College of Applied Life Studies
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820

Voice: (217) 244-5870
Fax: (217) 333-0248

E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu

WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
Received on Wednesday, 19 July 2000 15:41:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:14 GMT