RE: RE: SC 2.4.6 wording

Precisely - it needs to be intensional AND robust.


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

-----Original Message-----
From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com]
Sent: 23 February 2007 22:31
To: Sean Hayes
Cc: Slatin, John M; TeamB
Subject: Re: RE: SC 2.4.6 wording

Thanks, having a concrete example does help.

I think that the first order you listed (which jumps between columns) should fail this success criterion, even if it was intentional.
Someone who can't see the text is going to be completely confused as he tabs through that tab order. If the rendering of the page changes so that the columns are no longer next to one another, but sequential,  it won't make any sense to a sighted person, either.

Loretta

On 2/23/07, Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> wrote:
> OK here is an example of what I'm thinking of:
>
> A two or more column newspaper style layout. The content has links dispersed throughout.
>
> (this might not work but here is a text example)
>
> Pellentesque <lorem> ipsum, euismod ut,   Nulla enim massa, <lorem> elementum vitae,
> gravida non, elementum eget, sapien.    euismod ac, placerat in, <lorem> tellus.
> Fusce a felis. Cras <lorem> <lorem>,    auctor id, lacinia sed, dolor.
> commodo ut, lacinia in, sagittis ut,    Etiam consequat dapibus metus.
> orci. Vivamus aliquet magna ut diam.    Cras suscipit volutpat nunc.
> Nunc aliquam leo non felis. Aenean              Quisque ipsum. Quisque <lorem> felis.
> pulvinar. Nunc fermentum. Cras neque.   Sed vehicula cursus lacus.
> Aenean cursus. Donec malesuada sem              Aenean pede lacus, accumsan sed,
> in lectus auctor varius. Suspendisse    convallis in, varius egestas, nisi.
> arcu metus, cursus et, imperdiet                Curabitur at libero. Etiam ipsum orci,
> quis, tincidunt eu, arcu.                       tristique ut, lobortis quis, ante.
>
> Where the <lorem>'s are links.
>
> An intensional decision might be to do [(Column1, Link1),(Column2,
> Link1), (Column2, Link2), (Column1, Link2), (Column1, Link3),
> (Column2, Link3)] which is an appropriate order in the visual space (minimises scrolling).
>
> Another intensional order might be
> [(Column1, Link1),(Column1, Link2), (Column1, Link3), (Column2,
> Link1), (Column2, Link2),  (Column2, Link3)]  (reading order)
>
> The first of these would probably not be robust for a screen reader. Whereas the second could be.
>
> Assuming the content order was Column 2, Column1 (for some reason); the default order would not be an intensional order, although it would be robust.
> [(Column2, Link1), (Column2, Link2),  (Column2, Link3), (Column1,
> Link1),(Column1, Link2), (Column1, Link3) ]  (default order)
>
> There may be other appropriate intensional orders which could also be robust (e.g. appropriate in a screen reader_ e.g. If for some reason - say the author wanted to visit all the level 1 headers before the Level2+ headers.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
>
> Sean Hayes
> Standards and Policy Team
> Accessible Technology Group
> Microsoft
> Phone:
>   mob +44 7977 455002
>   office +44 117 9719730
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com]
> Sent: 23 February 2007 21:37
> To: Sean Hayes
> Cc: Slatin, John M; TeamB
> Subject: Re: RE: SC 2.4.6 wording
>
> I'm not sure of what you mean by the intensionality or robustness of the ordering. Can you give some examples that might clarify what sorts of content that would pass but shouldn't, or vice versa?
>
> Loretta
>
> On 2/23/07, Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > I think it contains some of the elements, but does not adequately capture the intensionality, or robustness of the ordering.
> >
> >
> > Sean Hayes
> > Standards and Policy Team
> > Accessible Technology Group
> > Microsoft
> > Phone:
> >   mob +44 7977 455002
> >   office +44 117 9719730
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Slatin, John M [mailto:john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu]
> > Sent: 23 February 2007 21:17
> > To: Sean Hayes; Loretta Guarino Reid; TeamB
> > Subject: 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 22:33:43 UTC