- From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 12:52:41 -0400
- To: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
One's esteemed colleague John Slatin pointed out that one is expected to trawl through the Bugzilla database and figure out which issues could be closed with yesterday's proposed wording: <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0145.html> Issues related to separation of structure, presentation, and behaviour: <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/issuereports/content-structure-separation_issues.php> A more convenient link for open issues mentioning "1.3" is: <http://tinyurl.com/9wk3w> So here we go. 1. Issue 603 - Proposed wording for Guideline 1.3 URL: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=603 Four contributors view the original wording of "Information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation" as e.g. "too vague" and "quite difficult for many to grasp." I think that the original wording and my suggested improvement will be equally difficult to grasp for Web developers who think that sites are visual creatures rather than structural creatures. Accessible sites-- at least for traditional HTML-CSS-JS pages-- require nice tidy structural markup, or, at the very minimum, something not resembling tag soup. The people who find the separation of structure, presentation, and behaviour difficult to grasp are the ones most likely to make inaccessible pages. They require a skills upgrade that is readily available from free Web sites (including WAI's) and many books. 1a. Issue 1339 - GL 1.3 wording hard to understand URL: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1339 This item reiterates the complaint listed above. This item could be closed. 2. Issue 604 - proposed wording for first SC under 1.3, level 1 URL: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=604 This posting attempts to provide improved wording for a success criterion. The wording is overlong and focuses on only certain HTML constructs (including the ever-picayune emphasis) and is unaffected by altering the wording of the underlying guideline. (That is, the proposed success-criteria wording does not improve with the new proposed guideline wording.) 2a. Issue 938 - Clarify language in Guideline 1.3, especially examples URL: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=938 2b. Issue 1088 - Add an example to Guideline 1.3, SC2. URL: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1088 These postings are a clarification of the proposed success-criteria wording and are unaffected by the new guideline wording. This item could be left open. 3. Issue 796 - Describe how 1.3 benefits people URL: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=796 This single item asks for a statement of who benefits from the guideline. We still need that, and the answer will have to do with the true function of HTML Web pages and the usefulness of structural markup for browsers, adaptive technologies, and later reuse. This item should be left open. 4. Issue 1097 - Difference between 2.4 and 1.3 is confusing. Also, Table of Contents and sitemap wont always work. URL: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1097 This posting complains of overlap and ambiguity with Guideline 2.4, "Provide mechanisms to help users find content, orient themselves within it, and navigate through it." The proposed new guideline wording would ease the ambiguity about the use of document structures to summarize content; if, in a conventional Web page, you're using correct semantic markup like headings, your browser or adaptive technology can list those headings for you (and create custom on-the-spot tables of contents, another requirement in 2.4). We can provide that explanation in the technique. 2.4 really does overlap with 1.3 and places excessive burdens on authors who are already creating semantic Web pages. 4a. Issue 1388 - Don't repeat GL 1.3 SC in GL 2.4 URL: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1388 A reiteration of the same complaint. This item should be left open. 5. Issue 1333 - 1.3 SC2 requires two presentations? URL: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1333 >David Poehlman says: > >>Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.3 Information presented >>using color is also available without color and without having to >>interpret markup (for example through context or text coding). [V] > >This sounds like we have two possible presentations when we actually >should only need one that incorporates color and beyond? Structural markup is the correct method that acts as a backup when an author shows emphasis through colour or uses colour to indicate part of a page. The original technique is incorrect. The proposed new guideline wording would take care of the principles involved, though the technique needed to be rewritten and, in the interim, has been. 5a. Issue 1453 - Don't understand General Technique for GL 1.3 L1 SC3 - using color to convey information URL: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1453 A related complaint, also calling for a rewrite of the technique. 5b. Issue 1496 - 1.3 L1 SC3 - describe functional outcome and remove examples URL: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1496 This item gives improved wording. (Issue 1497 seems to be a duplicate.) This item should be closed. 6. Issue 1350 - GL 1.3, Example 1 conflicts with usability URL: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1350 >Catherine Brys says: > >Example 1 of Guideline 1.3: Users should be informed of mandatory >fields before filling out and submitting a form. This example may be >interpreted as suggesting that it is ok to flag up mandatory fields >after submission. This item is unaffected by the new guideline wording and can be left open. The following item is purely housekeeping and relates to action items after an f2f meeting and the like: Issue 1225 - Issue Summary for Guideline 1.3 (content-structure-separation) URL: http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1225 SUMMARY Close: 603, 1339, 1333, 1453, 1496, 1497 Leave the rest. -- Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/> Expect criticism if you top-post
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2005 16:58:13 UTC