Re: RE: SC 2.4.6 wording

Good catch. While I think there is  one programmatically determined
reading order (at least within the bounds of 1.3.3) there are other
relationships that could be reflected in the tab order.

Sean, I'm not sure we are coming up with a better wording for 2.4.6.
Do you have any suggestions for how to improve things, or should we
live with the current wording? Do you at least have suggestions for
disambiguating the current phrasing, since you felt it could be used
to justify any tab order?

Loretta

On 3/4/07, Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu> wrote:
> Side note
>
> Is there only one 'programmatically determined' reading order?  Seems like
> there could be multiple in a table for example.
>
> If you mean the order that the code appears in the source file then that may
> not be the order that is presented or even a logical presentation order.
>
> When you think cross technology this one gets very complicated.
>
>
> 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: Sunday, March 04, 2007 7:43 PM
> > To: Sean Hayes
> > Cc: Gez Lemon; Slatin, John M; TeamB
> > Subject: Re: RE: SC 2.4.6 wording
> >
> >
> > Let me take another crack at the wording of SC 2.4.6. Is this
> > getting any closer to what we mean?
> >
> >
> > 1.3.3 Meaningful Sequence: When the sequence in which content
> > is presented affects its meaning, when the content is
> > navigated sequentially, the interactive components within
> > that content receive focus in an order that is consistent
> > with the programmatically-determined reading order.
> >
> >
> > (This is still very difficult to parse; suggestions for
> > clearer wording welcome...)
> >
> >
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 5 March 2007 06:22:24 UTC