Some thoughts about combining 1.3.1 and 1.3.4

I put this together very quickly before the team C meeting to help 
discussion.

At the face 2 face there was discussion about 1.3.1, 1.3.2 and 1.3.4 and 
there was agreement to investigate combining 1.3.4 with 1.3.1. 

I've looked at 1.3.1 and 1.3.4 and the how to meet documents for them.   I 
think we can just eliminate 1.3.4 as it is less restrictive than 1.3.1 
because 1.3.1 requires that the information conveyed through presentation 
can be programmatically determined while 1.3.4 just requires that the 
variations in presentation of text can be programmatically determined OR 
the information is available in text. The only thing that 1.3.4 is 
providing is the option to provide the information in text but is still 
not requiring it.  I also think that the definition of presentation that 
is used in 1.3.1 will cover variations in presentation of text.   But, I 
wasn't at that part of the face to face so I'm sure I have missed 
something.   But, to get the discussion started  I'll take a stab at the 
modifications we need to the 1.3.1 HTM document in order to incorporate 
the information from 1.3.4. 

Add another example in the second paragraph of the Intent section of HTM 
1.3.1:
indicating that some words that have special status by changing the font 
family and /or  bolding, italicizing, or underlining them 

Add G117: Using text to convey information that is conveyed by variations 
in presentation of text  to the list of sufficient techniques for 1.3.1

I struggle with what to do with   H49: Using semantic markup to mark 
emphasized or special text (HTML) This was only sufficient to meet 1.3.4 
and I don't believe that it meets 1.3.1 since the in some examples 
information is not conveyed, just the presentation.  Yes, <em>, <strong>, 
etc do convey some structure but they just convey that the data has that 
structure - not why thus, I'm not sure it is conveying the information as 
required by 1.3.1    I'm surprised that  G115: Using semantic elements to 
mark up structure  which is sufficient to meet 1.3.1 is a general 
technique since it provides HTML examples. I think we need consider 
eliminating the examples that related specifically to text and truly only 
use semantic elements to mark up structure.  Some of the examples in H49 
(such as the ever controversial quote, and blockquote do convey meaning. 
And, super and subscripts do convey meaning about how letters are 
organized so perhaps we need to combine H49 and G115.  What do people 
think?  I think that the troublesome elements are em and strong since they 
do convey meaning but not necessarily meaning.  But I'm not sure how we 
can say that some semantic elements are acceptable to convey information 
and not others?

If we believe that H49 is valid for 1.3.1 than  F2: Failure of SC 1.3.1 
and 1.3.4 due to using CSS to create variations in presentation of text 
that conveys information without also using the appropriate markup or text 
could be added to 1.3.1 as well. 

I think the benefits section of 1.3.1 covers the general benefits of 
structural markup and that we do not need to add the specific benefits 
from 1.3.4.   It might be possible to incorporate the two bullets from 
1.3.4 into an example type sentence at the end of the 1.3.1 benefits 
section if people feel it is necessary. 

I'm not sure how the example in the HTM of 1.3.4 applies and do not 
suggest moving it to 1.3.1.  But, we should discuss with Makoto and 
Loretta first as I believe they were involved in the creation of this 
example. 

How would this combination affect the open issues?

588 - wants to promote 1.3.4 to level 1 - this combination essentially 
does that.  The proposed response already addresses the comments about 
1.3.2.
583 - wants the meaning conveyed so I think combining with 1.3.1 and 
requiring the information to be conveyed would resolve this issue.
1284 - wants this SC strengthened so I think combining with 1.3.1 would 
resolve. 
1234 - wants some L2 SC of 1.3.1 moved up to level 1 - I'm not sure if the 
SC in question is 1.3.4 or 1.3.5 - we should contact the commenter for 
clarification.
964 - wants to add example about highlighting to 1.3.4. I don't think that 
would be appropriate for 1.3.1 so propose a reject of this one.
863 - needs more thought 
715 - wants 1.3.4 strengthened, I think combining with 1.3.1 would resolve
636 - wants 1.3.4 strengthened (  I think) needs a second look






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

Received on Monday, 13 November 2006 21:36:18 UTC