- From: <lguarino@adobe.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 07:25:44 -0700
- To: "Li, Alex" <alex.li@sap.com>
- Cc: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>, John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> > Re: Level 1 SC 2: "When content is arranged in a sequence that > > affects its meaning, that sequence can be determined > > programmatically." > Don't you think this put a lot of burden on the content creator to > determine a meaningful sequence? I struggle to think of an example > where the sequence, in an of itself, would alter the fundamental > meaning of a delivery unit. By assigning a sequence, on the other > hand, is a sort of prioritization. Thus, it has some meaning. But > it is not necessarily a consequencial meaning. <hah!> I wish to > make it easier and clearer for most web developers by some wording > change. Additionally, I can't see how this is testable as is. The kinds of problems this SC addresses are occasions where there is significance to the default visual rendering that is not being reflected properly in the underlying structure. Examples are badly tagged PDF files (of course), or CSS that lays out contents in a visual order that is different from the underlying structure and where information and relationships are lost as a result. I don't know whether failure to set a meaningful tab order also falls in this category. It is true that there isn't always a single correct total order. If there are 3 articles on a page, they can probably be read in any order, but I want the information within each article to be ordered correctly. I agree that it is hard to glean this from our success criterion, and I don't know whether we have captured it yet or not. Loretta
Received on Thursday, 5 May 2005 14:25:55 UTC