- From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:17:02 -0500
- To: Alastair Campbell <alastc@gmail.com>, Adam Cooper <cooperad@bigpond.com>
- Cc: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <c28de640eb47f487794e3ee615220af4@mail.gmail.com>
[Alastair wrote] Ø Does anyone know of a taxonomy of ‘relationships’? Or is the definition of relationships as ‘meaningful associations between pieces of content’ open-ended? This has always been an open ended item – the sufficient techniques provide glimpses of what the WCAG working group considered – but they are just sufficient techniques. For example, it’s always been a mystery if groups of links are required to be grouped in a nav, ul, map, or other element. Similarly, 1.3.1 would ideally address emphasis and other inline markup – although it’s not clear on if this is actually required to meet the criteria. Ø It also goes hand in hand with 4.1.2 (Name, Role, Value) which is the equivalent thing for more functional sites, and the taxonomy I would use for that is the HTML + WAI-ARIA spec. A number of people have indicated that 4.1.2 applies to non-native HTML control information citing the note “Note: This success criterion is primarily for Web authors who develop or script their own user interface components. For example, standard HTML controls already meet this success criterion when used according to specification.” in the understanding documents while 1.3.1 applies more to controls that can be identified by the native HTML semantics. Jonathan *From:* Alastair Campbell [mailto:alastc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Sunday, November 24, 2013 10:54 AM *To:* Adam Cooper *Cc:* WAI Interest Group *Subject:* Re: interpreting success criterion 1.3.1 Adam Cooper wrote: Does anyone know of a taxonomy of ‘relationships’? Or is the definition of relationships as ‘meaningful associations between pieces of content’ open-ended? It's an interesting one, I generally think of that as "use the most appropriate markup to represent the designs purpose". The taxonomy of relationships is essentially the descriptions of markup in the HTML spec, so it's a matter of knowing what each tag & attribute is intended for. However, I wouldn't get too het up on the minutia, and would take a steer from what is actually implemented in user-agents. Compared to other success criterion, it can take quite a lot of time to check through on a per-page basis! It also goes hand in hand with 4.1.2 (Name, Role, Value) which is the equivalent thing for more functional sites, and the taxonomy I would use for that is the HTML + WAI-ARIA spec. hth, -Alastair
Received on Monday, 25 November 2013 19:17:33 UTC