Re: interpreting success criterion 1.3.1

I guess it would be what you call "open-ended" - if by that you mean - that there is no specific list of things covered.

There are any number of ways that information can be presented, and technology is changing that every day.  So a comprehensive list is not possible.  

The SC requires that all information including information conveyed by relationships be in a form that AT (or access features in mainstream technology) can access it 

This includes  the label being next to the field - conveying the information that that is the label for that field  -- or  the fact that something being near something or being in a group  has meaning.   etc.

Combined with 1.1  (where all non-text information needs to be in text (which AT  or access features in mainstream technology can access) this SC ensures that all information is accessible to AT (and access features). 

 
But since there is no list of technologies that will exist in the future (or even today) -- there is no list of what needs to be accessible or the techniques that need to be used.   The ones you cite for example can't be used to make flash or silverlight or many other technologies - and are only a subset of relational elements in HTML 5. 

One thing you can try is to remove all the visual formatting including paragraph and line breaks and see if you lose any information.  (you will)  
Now is what you lost available in markup?     If not then 

Does that help?   (though it is not the list you are looking for) 
 

Gregg

On Nov 22, 2013, at 10:47 PM, Adam Cooper <cooperad@bigpond.com> wrote:

> hi everyone,
>  
> I am interested in the group's thoughts regarding interpreting success criterion 1.3.1.
>  
> In my sphere of operation, this success criterion is typically satisfied by using UL, TH, and H-1-6.
>  
> That is, the success criterion is interpreted proscriptively as a requirement to use selected elements of structural mark-up, but only for a very limited set of relationships and/or  structures.
>  
> Does anyone know of a taxonomy of ‘relationships’? Or is the definition of relationships as ‘meaningful associations between pieces of content’ open-ended?
>  
> Cheers,
> Adam