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

Following up on Andi's response to Yvette's proposal to move the current 2.4 L3 SC1 (reading order) to L1 SC2, Gregg wrote:

<blockquote>
I still don't think we have this one nailed yet.  But if the information is weblike and does not lend itself to a linear order - we don't want to have an SC that cannot be passed.  At least not at the L1 or L2 level.  

Interesting point.  The current wording of 2.4 L3 SC1--

<blockquote>
1. When content is arranged in a sequence that affects its meaning, that sequence can be determined programmatically. [I]
</blockquote>

Was *intended* (by me; the wording is mine) to exclude the situation Gregg envisions here, where the content is arranged in such a way that there *is* no default linear order.  (I presume that at some point the user must be offered choices about what path(s) are available; how much information is provided about the paths will vary from situation to situation, as (for example) in Michael Joyce's hypertext fiction *afternoon, a story( (1987) or Stuart Moulthrop's *Victory Garden* (1991), both composed using the hypertext authoring tool Storyspace (which predates the Web by a number of years).

So I don't think we're trying to prevent authors from creating webs of linked nodes in which users choose where they want to go and there is no default order (or if there's a default it's not in any sense a preferred order-- it's just a default).sequence affects meaning: I think we're trying to find a way tell authors who *don't* mean to create such webs what they have to do to help user agents and Ats avoid really stupid mistakes that would create unnecessary confusion for the user.

OK, no more sentences for me tonight.
John


</blockquote>SC3

"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.utexas.edu/research/accessibility 



-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 9:39 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Agenda + [2.4] CORRECT version of 2.4 proposal



Hi Andi,

I think the wording was changed to support the fact that some content does not have a single linear or any linear reading order necessarily.  It may be weblike in structure for example.  

I still don't think we have this one nailed yet.  But if the information is weblike and does not lend itself to a linear order - we don't want to have an SC that cannot be passed.  At least not at the L1 or L2 level.  

Not sure where the exact wording came from.  
 
Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Andi Snow-Weaver
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2005 4:04 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: 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 Thursday, 5 May 2005 03:17:38 UTC