W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2015

Re: SC 1.3.1 and virtual columns

From: Oscar Cao <oscar.cao@live.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 05:33:41 +0000
Message-ID: <DUB405-EAS91C3583A4F73659D21CA418CE90@phx.gbl>
To: Wayne Dick <waynedick@knowbility.org>
CC: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, Userite <richard@userite.com>
Ha. I had the exact same reaction as you when I got questioned about how applicable 1.3.1. was to the scenario.
I think structure should not be mentioned at all in the SC, as the IG members have pointed out. It's the relationships that matter, not the structure.
So far I only see two scenarios in which the structure matters (but both are covered by other SC):
1 - Some content references the columns (I.e. 1.3.2. The sequence matters)
2 - Content in question focusable elements (I.e. 2.4.3. Focus order is broken)
One could bring up the Table element, but that to me goes under relationship, relationship between the headers and cell content, not structure.
RegardsOscar
Sent from Outlook Mobile




On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 8:12 PM -0800, "Wayne Dick" <waynedick@knowbility.org> wrote:





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
>
Received on Thursday, 10 December 2015 05:34:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 10 December 2015 05:34:14 UTC