W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > September 2014

Re: ( LC-2964)

From: <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 13:32:38 +0000
Message-Id: <E1XRi0k-00043c-8s@jessica.w3.org>
To: CB Averitt
Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
 Dear CB Averitt,

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group has reviewed the
comments you sent [1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Web Content
Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 published on 11 Dec 2008. Thank you for
having taken the time to review the document and to send us comments!

The Working Group's response to your comment is included below.

Please review it carefully and let us know by email at
public-comments-wcag20@w3.org if you agree with it or not before 17
September 2014. In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a
specific solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group. If
such a consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the opportunity to
raise a formal objection which will then be reviewed by the Director during
the transition of this document to the next stage in the W3C Recommendation
Track.

Thanks,

For the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group,
Michael Cooper
W3C Staff Contact

 1. http://www.w3.org/mid/E1XOtQx-00015k-DG@stuart.w3.org
 2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/


=====

Your comment on 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence: When the sequence in which
cont...:
> Does the W3C find any Meaningful Sequence violations in the examples
> given?
> Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
> The first example located here,
> http://sites.averittweb.com/MyWeb/test/MeaningfulSequencePage/example1/
> is an html page.  Some functionality, used for reference only, has been
> replaced with static images.  The primary focus is the reading order of
> the three paragraphs.  Is meaningful sequence violated?
> The second example located here,
> http://sites.averittweb.com/MyWeb/test/MeaningfulSequencePage/example2/
> is a static image but is coded very similar to our first example. 
> “Tip" is located near the bottom and is a pop-up modal.  Other buttons
> could be present in the same area as “Tips”.  Buttons such as,
> “keywords”, “hints”, and others.  The primary focus is the
> reading order of where the “Tip” button is located.  Is meaningful
> sequence violated?
> This is related to a real life situation and the Deque Experts are not
> in agreement as to whether or not this is a violation of 1.3.2.  We
> really value your interpretation of this so we can confirm that we are
> accurately applying WCAG 1.3.2 to this assessment.


Working Group Resolution (LC-2964):
Related to 1.3.2 it is important to understand the careful language that
was chosen for the success criteria.  The phrasing of the SC refers to "a
meaningful sequence" rather than "the meaningful sequence" and this was
done in order to indicate that there may be more than one possible
meaningful sequence.  If a group of accessibility professionals debate the
merits of more than one particular sequence and are not able to readily
reach a conclusion it may be that there is a reasonable argument for either
sequence being meaningful, and therefore multiple possible ways to meet
1.3.2.  

----
Received on Wednesday, 10 September 2014 13:32:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:18 UTC