RE: Proposal to remove "B.2.1.1" (was B.1.1.1)

My comments appear below (marked JR).

Cheers,
Jan

--
(Mr) Jan Richards, M.Sc.
jrichards@ocad.ca | 416-977-6000 ext. 3957 | fax: 416-977-9844
Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC) | http://inclusivedesign.ca/
Faculty of Design | OCAD University

From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]
Sent: February 14, 2011 5:58 PM
To: Richards, Jan
Cc: AUWG
Subject: Re: Proposal to remove "B.2.1.1" (was B.1.1.1)

Level A:   Provide the ability to use structural markup.

This could work, but will need a definition.

Structured content is defined ( under "content (structured)"), how about something like:

JR: Sorry for missing that definition - I searched its link name and its actually not used anymore. The problem is that the font tag is structure by this defn.

"If the web content allows for structured content, and controls are included to edit text formatting, then controls for editing structured content should also be available."

The first bit is rather clumsy, I'm just trying to say: if the web content allows for structure. It applies to HTML & PDF, not so much to Flash.

JR: Hmmmm...Flash has object structure....

Maybe the idea is that content should have structure and either it will be provided by the tool e.g. an FB update that gets placed within pre-existing structure (in which case unstructured input is ok) or the author must ensure that mechanisms for adding structure are available to authors. It feels a bit like a twin to our alternative content -focussed: "B.2.3.1 Alternative Content is Editable (WCAG): Authors are able to modify programmatically associated text alternatives for non-text content"

Assuming we can come up with a tighter definition of "document structure"...perhaps something like:
B.X.X.X Structured Content Support: Authoring tools support the incorporation of document structure by one of the following:

(a)    Auto-generated structure: Author entries are incorporated into document structure that is automatically generated by the authoring tool, or

(b)   Author mechanisms: Editing-views include options for adding document structure.



Level AA:     Default to structural markup.

Do you think in most cases this means some amount of auto-generation by the tool, in which case B.1.1.2 might cover it?

Not really, the use-case I come across most is web based WYSIWYG editors (e.g. TinyMCE / CKeditor). Most of these editors allow you to use structural markup (with varying levels of quality), however, a CMS might remove headings so that authors can't mess up their automated accessibility results. (Having no headings passes the old nested-headings tests!)

JR: OK but it would fail WCAG2.0 2.4.10 Section Headings

I'd like to say (even at level A) that they should default to structural controls over formatting controls, but you'd have to get into the nitty gritty of what is or is not structured vs formatting, and that would be quite HTML specific.


Also, another SC that has bearing here is:
B.2.2.1 Accessible Option Prominence (WCAG): If authors are provided with a choice of authoring actions for achieving the same authoring outcome (e.g. styling text), then options that will result in accessible web content (WCAG) are at least as prominent as options that will not.

That's a good point, and I had that in mind, it's just that there isn't anything that says controls for editing structured content should be there.

Kind regards,

-Alastair