RE: RE: SC 2.4.6 wording

Sean,

Does the proposal I made (reprinted below) get close to what you're
looking for? Or is it off the mark?

<proposed>
When a navigational sequence is conveyed through presentation,
components receive focus  in an order  that follows the relationships
and sequences conveyed through  the presentation. </proposed>

There's something not quite right, but I think it's  trying to go in the
direction you're suggesting.
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 john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu
Web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility 



-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Hayes [mailto:Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 2:42 PM
To: Slatin, John M; Loretta Guarino Reid; TeamB
Subject: RE: RE: SC 2.4.6 wording


I'd like the provision to capture two principles:
1) That the navigated order is *intensionally provided* by the author as
a natural presentation order of the content (they can use a default for
the content type if it is appropriate, but should do so in a mindful, as
opposed to accidental way)
2) That if the content is delivered in an alternative modality, that the
same order will be presented as that of the primary modality.

Now how we write that down I'm not sure, but I don't think we are there
yet.

Sean Hayes
Standards and Policy Team
Accessible Technology Group
Microsoft
Phone:
  mob +44 7977 455002
  office +44 117 9719730

-----Original Message-----
From: public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Slatin, John M
Sent: 23 February 2007 20:29
To: Loretta Guarino Reid; TeamB
Subject: RE: SC 2.4.6 wording


Thanks, Loretta. I think the approach makes sense, but I think "some
order" will get us into trouble.

But maybe we can flip it around? How does this sound?


<proposed>
When a navigational sequence is conveyed through presentation,
components receive focus  in an order  that follows the relationships
and sequences conveyed through  the presentation. </proposed>

Hmm. I wonder if this is already covered under 1.3.1? (The uber-SC...)

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 john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu
Web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility



-----Original Message-----
From: public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Loretta Guarino
Reid
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 7:03 PM
To: TeamB
Subject: SC 2.4.6 wording



Sean raised a number of issues of interpretation with our current
wording of SC 2.4.6:

<current>When a Web page is navigated sequentially, components receive
focus in an order that follows relationships and sequences in the
content. </current>

I thought I'd see whether we could clarify things by borrowing some of
the language of SC 1.3.1:

<proposal>
When a Web page is navigated sequentially, components receive focus in
some order that follows relationships conveyed through presentation .
</proposal>


Is this any better?

Loretta

Received on Friday, 23 February 2007 21:16:47 UTC