Re: SC 1.3.1 and virtual columns

When 1.3.1 came out I thought it was the epitome of unambiguous language. I
expressed this to my friend Alby Burke who was a constitutional lawyer in
2008, and he laughed at me. He told me that a rule must be a little
ambiguous to withstand the tests of real cases. Well I guess, 1.3.1 passes
the little bit of ambiguity test.

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Oscar Cao <oscar.cao@live.com> wrote:

> Hi Richard
>
> Thank you for your feedback and confirming what I had in my mind.
>
> To answer your question. The developer implemented it this particular way
> for responsive reasons. He and his colleagues wanted the content to appear
> above all other content in the section when viewed in a mobile viewport as
> it was the most important information on the page.
>
> And this is the most efficient way to implement it from a coding point of
> view. However, as we have concluded in this email thread, it poses one
> accessibility issue: the focus order is now broken.
>
> Regards
> Oscar
>
> Sent from Outlook Mobile <https://aka.ms/qtex0l>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 12:00 PM -0800, "Userite" <richard@userite.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Oscar,
>
> If the three columns only contain information and it does not matter which
> order they are read in then you would probably be OK - *PROVIDING* you
> never referred to the columns as “first” or “left” etc. anywhere. However I
> must question why you would want to code your columns in such a strange
> way???.
>
> If the columns contain focusable elements such as links then I am sorry to
> say that they will not comply with WCAG. They will be confusing for many
> disabled people such as keyboard users who expect the focus to follow a
> logical sequence as shown on the screen. On entering the three column
> section these users expect the first available link to be in the left
> column (unless the site is in Arabic). If the first link is in the
> right-hand column they will probably not see it and assume that you have
> used CSS to style your links for mouse users only.
>
> Regards
>
> Richard
>
> *From:* Oscar Cao <oscar.cao@live.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 09, 2015 3:15 AM
> *To:* Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com> ; Jonathan Avila
> <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> ; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: SC 1.3.1 and virtual columns
>
> Thank you all for your feedback.
>
> I've decided it's not in violation of 1.3.1 (although I still feel the
> positioning of the content should have some value. Even if it's not
> explicitly referred to in the content.)
>
> However, I have reached another dilemma and that is, the focusing order
> (2.4.3 - if memory serves me right). The default focus order is from top to
> bottom. So here, we suddenly jump to the top of the right hand column and
> then go back to the first column.
>
> I could understand if it was the contents to the page. But if it's just
> another chunk of content, is this jumping considered OK?
>
> Regards
> Oscar
>
> Sent from Outlook Mobile <https://aka.ms/qtex0l>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 6:05 PM -0800, "Jonathan Avila" <
> jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote:
>
> Ø  Your code does fail 1.3.2 *- Meaningful Sequence*
>
>
>
> Phil, if the order of the content is not relevant to its understanding and
> provides comparable access I don’t see why example 2 cited below your
> referenced example 1 would not apply and allow this to pass.
>
> *Example 2:* CSS is used to position a navigation bar, the main story on
> a page, and a side story. The visual presentation of the sections does not
> match the programmatically determined order, but the meaning of the page
> does not depend on the order of the sections.
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> --
> Jonathan Avila
> Chief Accessibility Officer
> SSB BART Group
> jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com
>
>
>
> 703-637-8957 (o)
> Follow us: Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/#%21/ssbbartgroup> | Twitter
> <http://twitter.com/#%21/SSBBARTGroup> | LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/company/355266?trk=tyah> | Blog
> <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/blog> | Newsletter <http://eepurl.com/O5DP>
>
>
>
> *From:* Phill Jenkins [mailto:pjenkins@us.ibm.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 08, 2015 6:47 PM
> *To:* w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: SC 1.3.1 and virtual columns
>
>
>
> Your code does fail 1.3.2 *- Meaningful Sequence*
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-sequence.html#content-structure-separation-sequence-examples-head
> *Examples of Success Criterion 1.3.2*
>
>    - *Example 1:* In a multi-column document, the linear presentation of
>    the content flows from the top of a column to the bottom of the column,
>    then to the top of the next column.
>
>
> Regarding your question about applicability of SC 1.3.1 - Info and
> Relationships: Information, structure
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#structuredef>,
> and relationships
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#relationshipsdef>
> conveyed through presentation
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#presentationdef>
> can be programmatically determined
> <http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html#programmaticallydetermineddef>
> or are available in text
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20/content-structure-separation-programmatic.html
>
> I do not think SC 1.3.1 always applies in your example description.  It
> would if there were headings at the top of each colum that were not marked
> as headings, or regions (landmarks) if the purpose of each column was
> conveyed some other way.  However, SC 1.3.1 would apply if the information
> in the column is referred to in the text by its column position
> (realtionship to the other columns) - for example, if someone had to do
> something with xyz in column 3, how would the AT user be able to determine
> that without sight? The AT would only know there are DIV's, not columns.
> There would have to be a heading or label or something like that  that is
> redundant with the visual positioning.  E.g. "do something with xyz in the
> Highlights section in column 3... If the information is not referred to
> by it relationship (e.g.column 3), then SC 1.3.1 is not applicable in my
> opinion.
>
> Another example is where a 3 column layout transfroms to a single column
> layout when going from desktop view to smartphone view and there is no loss
> in information relationship needed to use the app.
> ____________________________________________
> Regards,
> Phill Jenkins,
> IBM Accessibility
>
>
>
>
> From:        Oscar Cao <oscar.cao@live.com>
> To:        <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Date:        12/08/2015 03:53 PM
> Subject:        SC 1.3.1 and virtual columns
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> Hello fellow interest group members.
>
> I would like to know what the interest group’s views/opinions are in
> regards to SC 1.3.1 and the following scenario.
>
> The page has a three column layout (not created using tables). There’s a
> ‘box container of information’, it has been positioned via CSS to appear in
> the virtual third column. However, in the source code, it sits at the very
> start of the content section, see code below:
>
> <section>
> <div class=”box”>
> <!-- box container of information -->
> </div>
> <div class=”column”>
> <!-- column one -->
> </div>
> <div class=”column”>
> <!-- column two -->
> </div>
> <div class=”column”>
> <!-- column three -->
> </div>
> </section>
>
> The box container information is self-contained and will make sense
> wherever you place it. Thus, I didn’t bring up SC 1.3.2 (that talks about
> sequence). However, I am unsure if the positioning of the box information
> breaks SC 1.3.1. in regards to not being able to programmatically determine
> the visual position/location of the box container. Sighted users see it in
> column three, while AT users see it as the first thing.
>
> Regards
> Oscar
>