RE: GL 3.1 L3 SC4 (Section titles)

Loretta writes:

<q>I am also working on the guide doc for GL 2.4 L2 SC3, "Delivery units
have descriptive titles". </q>

Thanks for putting these two SC next to each other, Loretta. My
suggestion was to change GL 3.1 L3 SC4 to read:

<proposed>
Titles and headings are descriptive.
</proposed>

I was thinking that this wording would apply to both delivery unit
titles and section headings.

But now I see a possible redundancy, since GL 2.4 L2 SC3 requires
descriptive titles for delivery units.

To resolve this, I propose:
1. Change GL 2.4 L2 SC3 using the wording proposed above:
<newProposalForGL2.4L2SC3>
Titles and headings are descriptive.
</newProposalForGL2.4L2SC3>

And 2:
<deleteGL3.1L3SC4>
Section titles are descriptive.
</deleteGL3.1L3SC4>

Rationale: Descriptive titles for delivery units and descriptive section
headings both aid orientation and navigation (as well as understanding).
So it's appropriate to put them under GL 2.4. I also think this is
important enough to warrant placement at L2.

If there is no support for combining titles for delivery units and
headings at L2, then I would suggest the following:

1. Retain GL 2.4 L2 SC3 (Delivery units have descriptive titles).
2. Modify GL 3.1 L3 SC4 as follows: Headings are descriptive.

I worry that the latter is too HTML-centric, but again it avoids forcing
us to define "section" in a way we couldn't live with.

John

 
"Good design is accessible design."

Dr. John M. Slatin, Director 
Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin 
FAC 248C 
1 University Station G9600 
Austin, TX 78712 
ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524 
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu 
Web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility 



-----Original Message-----
From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lguarino@adobe.com] 
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 4:21 PM
To: John M Slatin; public-wcag-teamb@w3.org
Subject: Re: GL 3.1 L3 SC4 (Section titles)


This is a nice suggestion.

I am also working on the guide doc for GL 2.4 L2 SC3, "Delivery units
have descriptive titles". I find myself wrestling with trying to
describe descriptive titles in both places. I think we want the
definitions and techniques to be consistent,  but I don't think this
qualifies as a glossary term. 

I think your proposal would make it easier to share the techniques for
making a title descriptive. I worry that the current techniques for
sections are context dependent, that is, they depend on the other
headers that will be scanned at the same time. Maybe this is an argument
for removing those techniques, although I think they are important for
some uses.

Loretta



On 10/9/05 11:59 AM, "John M Slatin" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
wrote:

> 
> Sorry to be chiming in so late with this. But I think the proposed 
> definition of "section" is problematic.
> 
> The proposal is to define a "section" as a "self-contained" part of an

> authored unit. I worry that, if taken literally, this would include 
> every element in HTML that has an open and close tag. I know that's 
> absurd, but <p>yatta yatta</p> is self-contained, and for that matter 
> so is <a>link to something</a>.
> 
> It may also be a problem that there's no such thing as a <section> 
> element in HTML 4.01 or XHTML 1.x.
> 
> However, I'm not sure the definition is at the root of the problem. I 
> think it might be the SC itself.
> 
> In the SC we try to require a certain kind of treatment for "section 
> titles," but then it turns out we were making very HTML-specific 
> assumptions that depend on a loosely shared convention about what 
> constitutes a "section" within an HTML document.
> 
> What about something like the following for the SC itself?
> 
> <proposed>
> Titles and headings are descriptive.
> </proposed>
> 
> My thought in proposing this is that this SC is concerned only with 
> the characteristics of the title or heading-- we don't really care 
> whether it titles a delivery unit or a section within a text document.

> Where sections are concerned, all we can require is that *if* an 
> author puts a heading on it, the heading should be descriptive. We may

> not like it if the author doesn't provide such titles, but I think 
> that's a different issue.
> 
> Also, if the above proposal is accepted, we won't need to tie 
> ourselves in knots trying to define "section". <grin>
> 
> Note: There is a <section> element in the proposed XHTML 2.0
> specification: 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml2/mod-structural.html#sec_8.8.
> If the <section> element is used, then it has a child element called
<h>
> which defines the logical structure. These can be nested.
> 
> The  old familiar <h1>...<h6> are also available in XHTML 2.0.
> 
> There's potential for confusion here, and I think that makes a good 
> argument for omitting the word "section" from the SC and adding the 
> word "headings."
> 
> John
> PS Sorry I didn't do this in the WIKI, but I wasn't able to get in 
> this afternoon. "Good design is accessible design."
> 
> Dr. John M. Slatin, Director
> Accessibility Institute
> University of Texas at Austin
> FAC 248C
> 1 University Station G9600
> Austin, TX 78712 
> ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524
> email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
> Web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility
> 
>

Received on Monday, 10 October 2005 18:51:29 UTC