Re: SC 3.1.1 and 3.1.2

My two cents below marked as <bg>comment </bg>

Becky Gibson
Web Accessibility Architect
                                                       
IBM Emerging Internet Technologies
5 Technology Park Drive
Westford, MA 01886
Voice: 978 399-6101; t/l 333-6101
Email: gibsonb@us.ibm.com




Loretta Guarino Reid <lguarino@adobe.com> 
Sent by: public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org
02/19/2006 01:37 AM

To
"public-wcag-teamb@w3.org" <public-wcag-teamb@w3.org>
cc

Subject
SC 3.1.1 and 3.1.2







I've been editing 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, primarily to put them into the standard
template format.  Could you please review them?

http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=How_to_Meet_Success_Criterio

n_3.1.1
<bg>If you pick a language that defaults to a right to left reading order 
do you still have to mark the document as a whole as right to left?   I 
would think that only the non-default reading order would need to be 
marked? I am assuming someone has researched this and thus the need for 
two situations? I also think this rewording changed the meaning from the 
original how to meet.  If the text direction must be specifed for 
languages with right to left reading order it is not just for certain 
passages but for the entire document.  I suggest using the original 
situation b wording:  Identifying primary natural language(s) using a 
technology-specific technique listed below including identifying text 
direction using a technology-specific technique listed below. 
</bg>
http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=How_to_Meet_Success_Criterio

n_3.1.2

I have a few specific requests:
1. Can someone provide examples and a test procedure for the 3.1.2 failure
  "Failure due to using CSS styling to control directionality in 
XHTML/HTML"
  (My CSS is even worse than my HTML.)

2. As far as I can tell from the resources, there are many (but not all)
instances where the Unicode bidirectional algorithm is sufficient to
determine left-to-right and right-to-left properties of the tests. Should 
we
list using Unicode as a general technique? Or should this be addressed in
the discussion of "Identifying text direction of passage and phrases"? 
Only
there is no conditional in our sufficient technique. Are there additional
accessibility-related requirements for marking up all changes in direction
explicitly?
<bg>I don't think success criterion 3.1.1 is about identifying text 
direction of passages and phrases but is about the text direction of the 
entire document. I agree that text direction of passages and phrases 
should be discussed in 3.1.2.  I guess I am not sure what you are asking 
about the Unicode bidirectional algorithm - isn't that discussed in the 
technique titled, "Using a Unicode right-to-left mark (RLM) or 
left-to-right mark (LRM) to mix text direction inline"?   </bg>

3. I reduced the number of common failures related to text direction. I
think people would be better served reading Richard Ishida's discussions 
of
these issues. Doe this seem ok?
<bg>Yes, as long as we include a link to the dicussions in the resources 
section</bg>

4. The HTML technique " Using the lang attribute to identify changes in 
the
natural language" discusses lang vs xml:lang, etc. Do we want to continue 
to
itemize those distinctions in the How To Meet document, as currently
written?
<bg>Do we intend to have three separate techniques for each of these 
scenarios? Wendy asked this same question in the 3.1.1 draft from October. 
 There is currently one technique that explains the three situations (
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wcag-teamb/2005Sep/att-0107/primarylanguage.html) 
 The technique exists so I'm not sure why it didn't get moved over into 
the wiki? I think it would be fine to have one technique to cover the 3 
senarios but don't oppose three separate techniques.  The current 
technique in the wiki (which was moved over by Michael) , Using the lang 
attribute of the html element, is incorrect as it mixes HTML and XHTML.  
</bg>
 
Loretta

Received on Tuesday, 21 February 2006 15:25:40 UTC