RE: Action item: Rewriting 1.3, "Ensure that information, functionality, and structure are separable from presentation"

Is there then a definition of "behavior" that disambiguates the term 
from "information" "structure", and "presentation"?  (I couldn't find such a 
definition in latest WCAG2.0 internal draft)

To me, a paraphrasing of the intent following "ensure that information, 
structure, and behavior are preserved when presentation of such information, 
structure, and behavior is adapted to the needs of users with disabilities" 
seems more specific than the wording using "separable" ("separable" seems to 
me more ambiguous from an eventual techniques/testability point of view)

Questions: 

(1) Is such a guideline that does not include qualifying wording (as mentioned 
in previous messages excerpted following) able to be satisfied in a widespread 
way?  

(2) Would use of such a guideline be "raising the bar too high" for 
developers, or is it reasonable and practical to expect developers to meet 
such a guideline (as opposed to "leaving the bar too low" referenced 
following)?


Thanks and best wishes
Tim Boland NIST

<john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>:

> Joe proposes rewriting Guideline 1.3 "something like" the following:
>  
> <blockquote>
> Whenever markup or languages permit, ensure that
> structure, presentation, and behaviour are
> separated to the extent possible for the content.
> 
> </blockquote>
>  
> I too like the substitution of "behavior" for functionality (this change
> is also consistent with the proposed change to Guideline 3.2 that came
> out of the impact analysis for the guidelines and SC). But I'd like to
> keep  the rest of the wording as is, so I propose the following new
> wording for Guideline 1.3:
>  
> <proposed>
> Ensure that information, structure, and behavior are separable from
> presentation.
> </proposed>
>  
> Rationale
>  
> Becky's concern about the potential difficulty (impossibility?) of
> separating behavior from content in the case of certain uses of
> Javascript is important, and I would like to hear more about that.
>  
> I have a couple of other concerns as well.
>  
> In his original post, Joe argued that we can get rid of the word
> "information" in the current wording because no sane person would
> publish a Web page that had no content between the tags.  While this is
> probably true, I don't think it's really the point.  
>  
> The intent of Guideline 1.3 as I understand it is to ensure that
> information, structure, and behavior are preserved when the presentation
> format changes/is adapted to the needs of users with disabilities.  I
> use "information" here in the sense of a message to be conveyed (sense 1
> in WordNet's definition of information); data to be presented,
> collections of facts from which users may draw conclusions (sense 2 in
> WordNet's definition); knowledge gained from instruction, study, or
> experience (sense 3 in WordNet).
>  
> So the question is whether the word "structure" as defined in the WCAG
> glossary [1] can carry the weight of "information" in the senses listed
> above.  I think "structure" is defined in such a way that it probably
> *can* carry that weight. But I also think that interpreting it that way
> would be a stretch for the vast majority of our readers (including most
> of us...). And if I'm right about that we should probably retain the
> word "information."
>  
> I'm also concerned about the introductory phrase "Whenever markup or
> languages permit...": I worry that this would give developers carte
> blanche to use whatever technologies they want without regard for
> whether or not those technologies support accessibility (or at least
> this aspect of it)-- they could simply say that the language/technology
> they chose didn't "permit" any significant separation of structure,
> presentation, and behavior, but that's what the client wanted so...
>  
> The final phrase-- "to the extent possible for the content"-- raises
> similar concerns for me.
> So I propose accepting Joe's suggestion that we replace "functionality"
> with "behavior," and leaving the rest as it is in the current wording.
>  
> [1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#structuredef
>  
> John
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 
> "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 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Becky_Gibson@notesdev.ibm.com
> Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 12:51 PM
> To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Action item: Rewriting 1.3, "Ensure that information,
> functionality, and structure are separable from presentation"
> 
> 
> 
> <joe clark wrote> 
> 
> PROPOSAL
> 1.3 should be rewritten to read something like the following:
> 
> Whenever markup or languages permit, ensure that 
> structure, presentation, and behaviour are 
> separated to the extent possible for the content. 
> </end joe clark> 
> 
> I think I  like Joe's proposal for rewriting Guideline 1.3 to focus on
> separating structure, presentation and behavior from content.  Although
> I have concerns for the implications to the use of JavaScript.  In the
> case of web applications it may be impossible to separate the JavaScript
> (behavior) from the content if JavaScript influences or generates
> content based on a user choice. Maybe the "to the extent possible"
> clause in the above proposal gives me an out - for a web application the
> complete separation of behavior might not be possible?    I was also
> concerned that several of the experts who responded to Joe  wanted to
> see success criteria that require a site to function with JavaScript
> turned off. So, perhaps I really don't understand the implications of
> this proposal???? 
>   
> 
> 
> 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:  <mailto:gibsonb@us.ibm.com> gibsonb@us.ibm.com
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 25 April 2005 02:02:13 UTC