W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2013

RE: interpreting success criterion 1.3.1

From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 14:17:02 -0500
Message-ID: <c28de640eb47f487794e3ee615220af4@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alastair Campbell <alastc@gmail.com>, Adam Cooper <cooperad@bigpond.com>
Cc: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
[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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:50 UTC