- From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
- Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:59:20 -0500
- To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <6EED8F7006A883459D4818686BCE3B3B2943D4@MAIL01.austin.utexas.edu>
The following list contains most of the open issues listed in the issue summary for Guideline 2.4 and indicates how I believe the proposed wording for Guideline 2.4 that I sent to the list a few minutes ago addresses these issues. The complete list, including issues that have been closed and those tht are pending, is available via a link from the 8 October internal working draft [1] or directly at [2]. * #319 Tab order: revision does not use the phrase "logical tab order" * 370 (prposed wording eliminates word- and page-count as triggers for requirements) * 416 "sites" vs. Web applications: proposed wording addresses this issue by substituting "content" and/or "perceivable units" for "sites" * 434 Should be "core": Comment refers to old schema that divided between core and extended. Presumably though both Germany and SIDRR would prefer to see some of this at L1. That issue is not resolved by this proposal; however, it may be resolved by 1.3 L1 SC1 Structures and relationships within the content can be determined programmatically. The concern expressed by our colleagues in Germany and Spain about requirements being triggered by word- or page-count is resolved by eliminating length as a trigger for requirements in 2.4; the same would seem to be true for JIS comments regarding how length is determined (Japanese uses character-count, not word-count), but the proposed wording does not use length as a trigger for these requirements. * 441: I think the proposed wording addresses WKC concerns as well- will check with W to find out * 488 (table headers, etc.): resolved: covered under 1.3 * 491: comments about length-triggers, ToC: resolved- new wording eliminates length triggers, raises possibility of user agent being able to derive ToC, etc. * 564: US Access Board comment that it isn't clear what problem 2.4 tries to address: may be resolved by clarifying focus on navigation through content plus better informative material (i.e., Benefits and Examples) plus General Techniques. The 27 October proposal does not include new Benefits and Examples, but these are in preparation, and General Techniques for 2.4 is nearly complete. will need to check with the Access Board after full revision to see if we've addressed their concern. * 633: CKW prposed rewording- this seems to be a duplicate of an earlier issue, and I think it's been resolved- check with Wendy to see * 637: proposes what is in the 8 October draft for 2.4 L3 SC 2 Diagrams have structure... Proposed wording broadens "diagrams" to "images" so as not to unduly restrict use of SVG * 675 importance of user control: resolved, I think: refers to older draft (1.5), and concerns are addressed by combination of 1.3 and 2.4. Reference to UAAG 1.0 may also address this concern. * 676: OBE - referes to an example that no longer exists * 679 pause before voicing headers: OBE - not relevant to 2.4, though it might be a good idea for a (future) CSS technique on auditory presentation * 691 what is meant by "move through the content": the proposed wording for 2.4 does not include this phrase- instead it says "find content" and "identify location within content" - should ask Greg Lounay (sp?) if this resolves the concern Again, UAAG may help as well. * 760 (structural elements): resolved- term "structural elements" does not appear in current or proposed wording for 2.4; however, definition of structure (#506, if I remember correctly) hasn't been fully resolved, at least I don't think so. * 806- Web applications plus length issues. I think the proposed wording resolves Andi Snow-Weaver's concern. It now says "Content" has explicit structure (not *documents*) and ToC is one possibility for *documents* that appear as single perceivable units (not true for apps, usually). Check with Andi. Other comment concerns length; resolved by elimination of length as trigger for requirements. * 807 non-hierarchical relationships: I agree that current wording is redundant with 1.3 L1 SC1; proposed wording deletes this SC (L3 SC3) * 829: Linear reading order should be level 1. Not resolved- proposed wording still has this at L3, but generalizes it in such a way that it could perhaps be moved to L1 or L2 without too much trouble. It could go at L1 because the SC is restricted only to places where sequence matters (though I'm not sure the wording says that at this stage). * 859 Frames included in 2.4 L3 SC about perceivable units with titles? Not sure, may be complicated by "perceivable unit" since that might include the frameset rather than the individual frames within it. * 884 Logical tab order is subjective: resolved: proposed wording calls for tab order to follow sequences and relationships within the content, eliminates term "logical" * 946: need examples. Agreed, pending. * 948 example 5, suggestion to reword example. Agree that work is necessary, this is pending. * 955 ToC should include information about presentation modes. Not sure I understand the request. It comes from the Royal National Institute for the Deaf and refers to a June 2003 WD that still uses terms like "Best practices" and "considerations." According to Wendy's notes, the ToC was then a consideration; it is now a L2 requirement, but neither the current draft nor the proposed wording says anything about presentation modes. Could this be handled under General Techniques? Do we know what RNID means here? * 994 grammatical fix to example 1 by RNID. Agreed; if we retain the example we should make this fix. * 1008 assertion rather than requirement: Ian Jacobs challenges current wording which requires a statement that various things (incl. breaking up text into paragraphs) have been "considered." The prposed wording resolves this issue by deleting the requirement for an assertion and instead making use of paragraphs a L3 requirement. * 1016 When is a site map required? Andy Bud (sp?) proposes that site map is required for a site of any size if and when it's true that you can't access every page on the site directly from every page on the site. Proposed wording doesn't include this, might be a good idea. Not resolved yet. * 1046 comments on navigation-mechanisms. Harvey Bingham (?) suggests that 2.4 wd be the place to call for search engine. Resolved by proposed wording. Concern about testability of "logical tab order" resolved by proposed wording. Suggestion to add lists and tables to the "considerations" under L3 SC3 are covered by 1.3 (IMHO), so I consider this resolved; should check with Harvey to confirm. * 1090 Examples needed and clarification needed around 2.1: This issue seems to refer to 2.1 and not 2.4, so seems not to be relevant here. * 1091: Definition for more abstract event handler: Refers to 2.1 not 2.4 * 1102 Changing menus to present them in a different order impractical and expensive. OBE- not required in proposed wording. Refers to an item under 3.2 about position of search forms, so tangentially related to 2.4 call for search engine (2.4 L2). Not relevant to 2.4 however. * 1130 Add clear in-page link to important content. From WWAAC. The proposed wording probably would not resolve this issue for WWAAC since they want an explicit link that "looks for" important content such as full sentences, etc., to facilitate quick access to alternative representations of content. Skip links are covered in Genreal Techniques and would satisfy this SC but are not *required* in order to satisfy the SC. Still open, pending discussion with WWAAC. An explicit link might go at L3? * 1131 Consider number, location, and focus of links on a page. WWAAC proposes limiting number of links to 10-12 per page to support scanning techniques and allow links to be associated with function keys. Also propose avoiding embedded links, instead placing them at end of sentences , or using bulleted or numbered lists. They also suggest distinguishing between in-page links and those that go to other pages. They are aware that this departs from standard hypertext practice.. Not resolved by proposed wording. Some of these might be addressed as user agent issues (e.g., AT could look for embedded links and move them to end of paragraph. Severe limitation on number of links might be proposed as good practice in General Techniques with explicit comment about how such limits benefit people who use AAC, screen readers, etc., as per notes from WWAAC. * 1132: Provide progressive complexity for both page and site content. Proposed by WWAAC. Not addressed in the proposed wording for 2.4; have been thinking of it as a 3.1 issue but it could be a L3 requirement under 2.4 since it goes to navigation. * 1136 Reduce number and complexity of links, indicate necessary links. From City University of NY- call to limit number of links (similar to WWAAC) not addressed. Call to identify important links (related to but not same as WWAAC) not resolved by proposed wording. Call for consistent navigation is addressed under 3.2? though that doesn't deal with hierarchy issue. Call to make hierarchy of importance clear might be covered under ToC and site map. Call for use of structural markup to indicate structure of pages covered under 2.4 L2 SC 1 (in proposed wording) and 1.3 L1 SC1. Call for informative page titles is resolved by proposed and current wording. Preserve links to home page doesn't seem to be specifically an accessibility issue (?). Eradication of deep structures problematic, not addressed. * 1137 Dividing material into manageable chunks should be given higher priority. Not resolved by current or proposed wording. * 1147: >50,000 words or 50 perceived pages. Resolved by eliminating length as trigger. * 1169 Why 8 or more links as trigger for bypass requirement? Calls for supporting documentation for this number. Not resolved. * 1214 All SCs that resemble Section 508 Web requirements should be moved to L1 for harmonization. Not resolved- skip to main content link still currently at L2 (unless satisfied by UA). * 1230 Issue summary- action items from October face to face... here we go! == References [1] 8 October internal working draft: http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/ [2] Issues for Guideline 2.4 http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/issuereports/navigation-mechanisms_i ssues.php "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 jslatin@mail.utexas.edu Web <http://www.ital.utexas.edu/> http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility
Received on Thursday, 28 October 2004 04:59:24 UTC