Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Working Draft of December, 2007

>  ----------------------------------------------------------
>  Comment 4: meaningful and logical sequence
>  Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0015.html
>  (Issue ID: 2391)
>  Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
>  ----------------------------
>  Original Comment:
>  ----------------------------
>
>  The actual wording of this Criterion appears to relate only to the
>  need for a "correct reading sequence" to be programmatically
>  determined. No definition is provided for what is meant by "correct
>  reading sequence" and the Understanding SC 1.3.2 document appears to
>  be primarily concerned with ensuring assistive technologies do not
>  distort the presentation of material in such a way as to confuse the
>  users of these technologies.
>
>  I feel that it is also important for material to be presented in a
>  logical and clear way, particularly for people with cognitive and
>  learning disabilities. Of course, I recognise it is not possible to
>  determine if something is "logical" with a machine; however I believe
>  it is very possible for human testers to reliably determine when the
>  sequence of content or information is not meaningful or logical.
>
>  SC 1.3.2 should be rewritten so that it is also able to provide some
>  assistance to people with cognitive limitation, see following example;
>
>  Proposed Change:
>  1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence: When the sequence in which content is
>  presented affects its meaning, the reading order of the material is
>  logical and a correct reading sequence can be programmatically
>  determined. (Level A)
>
>  ---------------------------------------------
>  Response from Working Group:
>  ---------------------------------------------
>
>  A correct reading order will be one in which the words of a sentence
>  are in order and the sentences of a paragraph are in order. That is,
>  the order of the words in the sequence cannot be changed without
>  affecting its meaning.
>
>  The working group has considered the use of "logical" in various
>  success criteria in the past, and has come to the conclusion that it
>  is not testable. In this case, the current explanation of correct
>  reading order captures the property that human testers would find
>  agreement about.
>
>  We recognize that there are additional requirements related to how
>  information is organized that affects people with some cognitive and
>  learning disabilities. However, we have not been able to develop
>  success criterion for determining when the content has been organized
>  in a way that addresses those requirements.
>
>  ----------------------------------------------
>  Comment on WG response
>  ---------------------------------------------
>  It would be useful to include your definition of correct reading order in the Glossary, which is normative:
>  "A correct reading order will be one in which the words of a sentence are in order and the sentences of a paragraph are in order. That is, the order of the words in the sequence cannot be changed without affecting its meaning."
>

---------------------------------------------
Response from Working Group:
---------------------------------------------

We have added the following definition to the glossary:

correct reading sequence
     any sequence where words and paragraphs are presented in an order
that does not change the meaning of the content


Thanks again for the interest that you have taken in these guidelines.
Could we ask you to let us know whether or not you are satisfied with
this response by Wed, April 9?

Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact

On behalf of the WCAG Working Group

Received on Thursday, 3 April 2008 21:36:57 UTC