Re: Proposal to Delete or Keep 2.4.1

"Skipping link groups" and "Grouping links" are both SC 2.4.3 techniques. As
far as I can tell, they don't belong in SC 2.4.1. Neither is about
recognizing navigational features.

It isn't clear to me that "Using the link element and navigation tools" fits
this SC either, but I will defer to those more knowledgeable about HTML.

"Failure due to using structural markup for presentation effects" sounds
more like a SC 1.3.1 failure to me than a 2.4.1 failure.

"Failure due to Header misuse" is a 2.4.1 failure because we are recognizing
the headers are especially valuable for navigation. But the technique of
using headers is a SC 1.3.1 technique, not a SC 2.4.1 technique. (The use of
headers was proposed as a 2.4.1 technique initially, but rejected by the
working group since it was a SC 1.3.1 issue.) The description of this SC
says: "The purpose of this success criterion is to ensure that user agents,
including assistive technologies, can recognize any navigational mechanisms
that may be present in the content, beyond those perceivable structures
required by 1.3.1. 1.3.1 requires perceivable structures such as headings,
labels for form controls, lists, etc. to be programmatically determined."

We could keep this success criterion just to highlight the misuse of
scripting to create links in HTML. I still think that this issue is covered
by SC 4.1.2. 

Loretta

On 3/14/06 5:39 AM, "Christophe Strobbe"
<christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be> wrote:

> 
> 
> At 03:38 14/03/2006, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> <blockquote>
> We need to decide to delete or keep 2.4.1  Navigational mechanisms within
> the content can be programmatically determined. [How to meet 2.4.1]
> 
> There was a proposal to delete it because there were no techniques for the
> SC.
> 
> All techniques for 2.4.1 in the How TO Meet doc are either techniques for
> other success criteria as well,  (so they are already covered) or they are
> just a title with no techniques (in sufficient section).
> </blockquote>
> 
> I have edited the stub
> '<http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Failure_due_to_Header_misuse
> >Failure 
> due to Header 
> <http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Failure_due_to_Header_misuse>
> misuse' 
> and the two empty ones:
> <http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Failure_due_to_using_structur
> al_markup_for_presentation_effects>Failure
> due to using structural markup for presentation
> <http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Failure_due_to_using_structur
> al_markup_for_presentation_effects>effects
> and 
> <http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Failure_due_to_using_scriptin
> g_events_instead_of_anchors>Failure
> due to using scripting events instead of anchors. The only one that is
> still empty is 
> <http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Programmatically_expose_commo
> n_navigational_features&action=edit>Programmatically
> expose common navigational
> <http://trace.wisc.edu/wcag_wiki/index.php?title=Programmatically_expose_commo
> n_navigational_features&action=edit>features:
> I don't know what we can put there beyond creating links/navigational
> features according to spec (in HTML: the a, area and link elements;
> possibly also the base element, although that affects the behaviour of
> certain links rather than being a navigational mechanism in its own right).
> 
> I'm not sure if 'Failure due to using structural markup for presentation
> effects' should map to 2.4.1. How about 1.3.1 or 1.3.4?
> 
> 
> Gregg also wrote:
> <blockquote>
> The last poll was 12 to delete and 1 to keep and 2 who "could live with
> deleting it".
> 
> If there are techniques for the doc prepared and polled by Thursday we can
> discuss and see if new techniques change the picture. Otherwise we will
> need to delete as having no documented techniques to meet.
> 
> If there are techniques that are not already covered by other techniques –
> then the group can discuss and see if they feel it should stay or not.
> </blockquote>
> 
> If there are failures that are not covered elsewhere, then the SC has a
> reason for existence. I don't think that the other success criteria cover
> all situations (see especially the example in the third failure).
> I will now withdraw to my bunker and wait for the bombshells ;-)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Christophe
>

Received on Tuesday, 14 March 2006 15:43:29 UTC