Re: RE: SC 2.4.6 wording

I'm still trying to get an idea of whether there are any other
situations where we would consider a different tab order "logical",
once you have settled on one of the reasonable reading orders from
among the possibilities. If this is really the only relationship in
the content that is a concern, we might be able to just address it
directly.

Loretta

On 2/27/07, Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu> wrote:
> I agree.
>
> I thought I wrote a note on this earlier.  Combining these has the
> unintended effect of making it sound like there is one order rather than any
> order that a person could see as logical to a user (not a programmer).
>
>
> Gregg
>  -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
> > Loretta Guarino Reid
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 8:01 PM
> > To: Slatin, John M
> > Cc: Sean Hayes; TeamB
> > Subject: Re: RE: SC 2.4.6 wording
> >
> >
> > I am concerned that it might outlaw things like tabbing
> > through a table in column order rather than row order. Can
> > anyone else think of situations where we would want a tab
> > order that didn't match the reading order?
> >
> > Loretta
> >
> > On 2/27/07, Slatin, John M <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > > I think the proposal to combine works well..
> > >
> > > I think this is cleaner than cross-referencing. Note that accepting
> > > this proposal would eliminate what's current SC 2.4.6 (OK by me!).
> > >
> > > 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: Monday, February 26, 2007 1:29 PM
> > > To: Loretta Guarino Reid; Slatin, John M
> > > Cc: TeamB
> > > Subject: RE: RE: SC 2.4.6 wording
> > >
> > >
> > > I think this is getting close to it. Although it might be a bit
> > > restrictive.
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > Loretta Guarino
> > > Reid
> > > Sent: 26 February 2007 03:18
> > > To: Slatin, John M
> > > Cc: Sean Hayes; TeamB
> > > Subject: Re: RE: SC 2.4.6 wording
> > >
> > >
> > > SC 1.3.3 currently reads:
> > >
> > > 1.3.3 Meaningful Sequence: When the sequence in which content is
> > > presented affects its meaning, a correct reading sequence can be
> > > programmatically determined.
> > >
> > > Can we leverage this somehow?
> > >
> > > <proposal>
> > > When a Web page is navigated sequentially, interactive components
> > > receive focus in an order that is consistent with the
> > programmatically
> > > determined reading sequence of SC 1.3.3. <.proposal>
> > >
> > > Is it ok to cross-reference SC like this? Maybe this SC
> > should just be
> > > folded in to SC 1.3.3 (although they are currently at different
> > > levels; but the proposal would move them to the same level.)
> > >
> > > <proposal to combine>
> > > SC 1.3.3 currently reads:
> > >
> > > 1.3.3 Meaningful Sequence: When the sequence in which content is
> > > presented affects its meaning, a correct reading sequence can be
> > > programmatically determined. When the content is navigated
> > > sequentially, interactive components receive focus in an
> > order that is
> > > consistent with this sequence. </proposal to combine>
> > >
> > > Loretta
> > >
> > > On 2/24/07, Slatin, John M <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > > > Here's another proposal:
> > > >
> > > > <newProposal>
> > > > When the default presentation is used to indicate a specific
> > > > sequence in which to navigate content, components within that
> > > > sequence receive focus in the order indicated by the
> > default presentation.
> > > > </newProposal>
> > > >
> > > > I'm trying to capture intentionality in the phrase "is used to
> > > > indicate a  specific sequence"; and
> > > >
> > > > I've tried to capture robustness in the repetition of "default
> > > > presentation." The thought is that even if presentation
> > is altered
> > > > by the user (or by AT), the user will still be able to
> > navigate the
> > > > content in the order indicated by the default
> > presentation.  This is
> > > > presumably the one intended by the author, but since we can't be
> > > > sure of fully understanding the author's intention we can't talk
> > > > about it in a success criterion.
> > > >
> > > > Hope this gets closer.
> > > > 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: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com]
> > > > Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 5:16 PM
> > > > To: Sean Hayes
> > > > Cc: Slatin, John M; TeamB
> > > > Subject: Re: RE: SC 2.4.6 wording
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > PDF is, of course, one of the technologies that
> > particularly drives
> > > > the need for this SC and the content order SC. Because
> > the rendering
> > > > and the structure are completely separate, it is possible
> > to do all
> > > > kinds of things that look fine visually but produce completely
> > > > unusable DOMs.
> > > >
> > > > PDF is another reason that we can't use terms like "content order"
> > > > here (although it is a very useful concept for these issues in
> > > > mark-up
> > > > languages.)
> > > >
> > > > Given that CSS may render blocks on the page in a different order
> > > > from
> > >
> > > > the content order, I agree that we don't want to require that the
> > > > tab order be the content order.
> > > >
> > > > These were some of the reasons for the appeal to "sequences and
> > > > relationships in the content". I think John's proposal
> > was getting
> > > > closer, although I'm not sure there is a reliable way to
> > distinguish
> > > > two independent columns from two columns, one of which is the
> > > > continuation of the first, without actually understanding
> > the content.
> > > >
> > > > Loretta
> > > >
> > > > On 2/23/07, Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > > > Well in the example I was intending it to be one article, but
> > > > > where the content order was for some reason scrambled - e.g.
> > > > > content was being added to the end of the file but getting
> > > > > inserted out of order
> > >
> > > > > in the presentation, which for example I beleive can
> > happen in PDF
> > > > > (or
> > > >
> > > > > at least it used to).
> > > > >
> > > > > The first example was where the author intensionally caused the
> > > > > sequential navigation order to cross columns (it might even
> > > > > redefine
> > >
> > > > > itself as the columns reflow to ensure it continued to make
> > > > > sense), this is a fine and dandy approach in the visual space -
> > > > > but it is not robust because as you say it would confuse a user
> > > > > who had to navigate the content in reading order.
> > > > >
> > > > > The second example, where the order was intensional and
> > robust is
> > > > > supposed to be the exemplar version.
> > > > >
> > > > > The third example points out that it is possible to be
> > robust, but
> > > > > without intension the order could still not make sense. If they
> > > > > were
> > >
> > > > > two articles, then the default order might also be OK
> > intensionally.
> > > > >
> > > > > The last point I wanted to make is that there may be other
> > > > > non-content-order sequences which are both robust and
> > intensional.
> > > > > So we shouldn't necessarily restrict it to presentation
> > order must
> > > > > equal content order must equal navigation order (although often
> > > > > that
> > >
> > > > > is the simplest way of doing things)
> > > > >
> > > > > As an additional point, it might be reasonable for an author to
> > > > > use the first navigation sequence if they had the technology to
> > > > > ensure the
> > > >
> > > > > second sequence got used for those that needed it, but
> > I need to
> > > > > think
> > > >
> > > > > more on that.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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 22:46
> > > > > To: Sean Hayes
> > > > > Cc: Slatin, John M; TeamB
> > > > > Subject: Re: RE: SC 2.4.6 wording
> > > > >
> > > > > Oops - I'm back to not understanding what you mean by
> > this again.
> > > > > <grin>
> > > > >
> > > > > The idea behind this SC is that the tab order should follow the
> > > > > content order where the order of the content is
> > important. So tab
> > > > > order should follow content order  through a column of
> > text, but
> > > > > if there are two independent articles on a page, it
> > doesn't matter
> > > > > which comes first in the tab order. And in a table, it
> > might make
> > > > > sense for tab order to be by row or by column, but shouldn't be
> > > > > random.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does any of this map into either intensional or robust?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2/23/07, Sean Hayes <Sean.Hayes@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > > > > > 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 Wednesday, 28 February 2007 06:58:00 UTC