W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > May 2012

Re: H4 Example 3 seems to fail the test procedure in F44

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 14:48:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHu5OWb0kefYfHcEB67Scmxtpz5WcMj-NsouRXgpG3X__z61HQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: mark.rogers@powermapper.com
Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 4:17 AM, <noreply@w3.org> wrote:

> Name: Mark Rogers
> Email: mark.rogers@powermapper.com
> Affiliation: PowerMapper Software
> Document: TD
> Item Number: H4
> Part of Item: Examples
> Comment Type: technical
> Summary of Issue: H4 Example 3 seems to fail the test procedure in F44
> Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
> I can see what example 3 is trying to demonstrate, but if this example is
> used verbatim I think it would lead to a failure (because the tab order
> doesn't match the presentation order)
>
> Worth noting that H4 example 3 is also almost identical to F44 failure
> example 1 (so it's pretty confusing)
>
>
>
>
> Proposed Change:
> Perhaps adding some CSS classes that imply layout is different from source
> order would make this clearer:
>
> <a href="" class="topNav" tabindex="1">one</a>
> <a href="" class="subNav" tabindex="2">three</a>
> <a href="" class="topNav" tabindex="1">two</a>
> <a href="" class="subNav" tabindex="2">four</a>
>
> The other alternative would be placing the code in table like example 1.
>
> ================================
Response from the Working Group
================================
Thank you for your comment; we agree with you.  The first code example in
Example 3 will be deleted, as it seems at odds with the stated purpose of
the technique as noted in the description.

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, 24 May 2012 21:49:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:15 UTC