Re: Agenda + [2.4] CORRECT version of 2.4 proposal

Level 1 SC 2: "When content is arranged in a sequence that affects its
meaning, that sequence can be determined programmatically."

- I think there is a problem with the way this is worded. I think this is
supposed to be about the reading order of the elements of a page when they
are rendered by a screen reader or some other technology that renders the
elements in a simple linear order. Is there anything that really affects
reading "order" except layout tables and JavaScript? I don't know of any
way to programmatically specify the reading order of the elements.
- For layout tables, the order is predetermined and the author has to
understand that and simply code the tables so that the content makes sense
when it is read in that predetermined reading order.
- And with content that is displayed due to a JavaScript executing, the new
content has to be located in the HTML code so that the screen reader reads
it correctly in the sequence. For example, if the content displayed by a
JavaScript is physically located in the HTML file at the end of the file,
the screen reader will not read it until it gets to the end regardless of
where the JavaScript caused it to be displayed on the screen. This may make
the page not understandable.
- I am struggling with how to generalize this. I want to say something like
"Order the elements of the delivery unit so that, when read sequentially,
any meaning conveyed by the visual presentation of the delivery unit is
maintained." But does this work in all technologies? I think it works in
PDF but what about other technologies like xForms?

Level 1 SC 3: "For each reference to another delivery unit, a title or
description of that delivery unit can be programatically determined.", I
have two questions:

-  this is already covered in GL 3.2 Level 2 SC 6. Are you proposing that
we have two success criteria that address this or are you proposing that we
remove the GL 3.2 success criteria?

- what is the rationale for moving this to Level 1?

Level 2 SC 1: "Documents that have five or more section headings and are
presented as a single delivery unit include a table of contents with links
to important sections of the document. " is not testable due to the word
"important". Suggest rewording as "Documents that have five or more section
headings and are presented as a single delivery unit include a table of
contents with links each section heading of the document. "

Level 2 SC 3: "Blocks of repeated material are implemented so that they can
be bypassed by people who use assistive technology or who navigate via
keyboard or keyboard interface." needs some work to clarify where the
repeated material is. Navigation menus are not repeated within a single
page but this is what we want people to be able to skip. They are repeated
on each page of a "site". How about something like "Blocks of material that
are duplicated on the delivery units of a Web site domain are implemented
so that they can be bypassed by people who use assistive technology or who
navigate via keyboard or keyboard interface."

Level 3 SC 2: "Images have structure that users can access." is technology
dependent. If you have an image technology that supports "structure", then
Level 1 SC 1 applies.

Level 3 SC 4 and 5: I suggest using the word "organized" instead of
"divided". Divided implies (to me) that that there must be at least two
paragraphs or two headings when one might actually be enough for very short
texts.

I agree that "heading" is the right term but not because it is what is used
in HTML. It is the term used in English grammar. I wonder if this will
translate well to other languages.

Examples: I think the short titles of the examples should tie the example
back to the success criteria it is meant to illustrate. For example, since
# 6 is about reading order, something like "Sequential reading order of an
online newsletter". This is a general suggestion that applies to all
examples in the guidelines.

Andi
andisnow@us.ibm.com
IBM Accessibility Center
(512) 838-9903, http://www.ibm.com/able
Internal Tie Line 678-9903, http://w3.austin.ibm.com/~snsinfo

Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2005 21:04:51 UTC