W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: 2.4.3, 1.3.2

From: adam solomon <adam.solomon2@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 09:03:27 +0300
Message-ID: <CALKv3=jm8JLa52tr1zz0BFi+hwMWmrc3-OGUKo0pBo3bBe5K1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Cc: Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I guess I am just missing something. I still feel that sufficient
techniques, though not being the only option for satisfying a success
criterion, do in fact come to correct some deficiency in the web page. Sure,
there are other ways to do it, but the deficiency needs to be addressed one
way or the other. In H4, there is no deficiency by WCAG standards. Since the
reading order is acceptable (if it weren't, we couldn't use this technique
anyway since it violates 1.3.2), the focus order must also be acceptable by
definition, and the added benefit of reading one person at a time in the
bride/groom example adds no WCAG success to the web page, and addresses no
WCAG deficiency.
If you all still think that this is a valid technique, then I will draft the
html5 technique in accordance with this one, and hopefully have it ready for
this week's meeting.

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Loretta Guarino Reid <
lorettaguarino@google.com> wrote:

> Adam, I am still having trouble understanding why you think the inclusion
> of the HTML tabindex technique is a problem.
> I think you are claiming that it is unnecessary? That it is always possible
> to use a different technique to satisfy the success criterion? Am I
> understanding that correctly?
> Loretta
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 10:46 PM, adam solomon <adam.solomon2@gmail.com>wrote:
>> Sailesh,
>> If one would expect to fill out the form one person at a time, would the
>> default table layout (not taking into consideration focus order) not violate
>> 1.3.2? After all, the programmatically determined reading order would read
>> the cells of the table row by row, not person by person. If so, then this is
>> not a sufficient technique.
>> We must then conclude that there is no violation of 1.3.2, and the
>> author's tabindexing is only a preference, in which a case this technique is
>> totally irrelevant.
>> Either way, there is a problem.
>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 6:07 AM, Loretta Guarino Reid <
>> lorettaguarino@google.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>> Loretta,
>>>> In principle, if you content:
>>>> >But the use of H4 is not required for SC 2.4.3...
>>>> Then why is it listed as a sufficient technique?
>>> Because it is sufficient. You may use it, but you may use some other
>>> sufficient technique.
>>>> Adam,
>>>> Well in that example of groom and bride, without tabindex, one may
>>>> content that reading order is meaningful. But if one navigates across fields
>>>> row-wise, it does affect meaning or operation. As I said in my last email,
>>>> the intent is not to compare first names but actually enter data into a
>>>> form. I imagine most would want to be done with data for one person then
>>>>  input data for the next. While filling out paper forms too,I'd complete the
>>>> form for person#1 and then person#2 and not fill out first name for person#1
>>>> then jump to form for the other chap and fill out his first name. That is
>>>> not logical. On a Web page the fields may be placed next to each other
>>>> visually but they are meant to be navigated "logically" for person#1 and
>>>> then #2. It is not the author's choice or reading  order... the author is
>>>> constrained by layout / design and must use tabindex (h4) to ensure
>>>> navigation does not affect operation.
>>>> Sailesh
Received on Monday, 15 August 2011 06:03:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:34:08 UTC