- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lguarino@adobe.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 12:08:34 -0700
- To: "John M Slatin" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, <public-wcag-teamb@w3.org>
While I'm always for proposals that reduce the number of success criteria, I worry that if we only require titles and heading to be descriptive, we never require that there be titles at all. However, I do like combining the two requirements for being descriptive. What about deleting GL 3.1 L3 SC4, and splitting GL 2.4 L2 SC3 into two success criteria: <proposal> GL 2.4 L2 SC3a: Delivery units have titles. GL 2.4 L2 SC3b: Titles and headings are descriptive. </proposal> Then we can combine the discussion of what it means to be descriptive. Loretta Guarino Reid lguarino@adobe.com Adobe Systems, Acrobat Engineering > -----Original Message----- > From: John M Slatin [mailto:john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu] > Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 11:51 AM > To: Loretta Guarino Reid; public-wcag-teamb@w3.org > Subject: 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 19:08:39 UTC