Re: Proposal for checkpoint 7.6 (my action item)

On Wed, 20 Sep 2000, Ian Jacobs wrote:

  Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
  > 
  > Proposal and rationale - techniques to follow...
  > 
  > My proposal is to modify as follows:
  > 
  > Add a P1 requirement for columnwise navigation of tables.
  >  (two different techniques:
  >     + provide cell-level focus and vertical movement within tables or
  >     + use tablin or similar to change the table axes back and forth )
IJ  
  I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS PROPOSAL. The WG long ago chose not to include
  a table navigation checkpoint and I don't believe that this issue should
  be reopened at this point. Refer to issue 160 [1]
  
  [1] http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear.html#160
CMN
If I can't find out what is in a table I can't access the content. For
graphical systems we have agreed that vertical / horizontal scrolling plus
exporting the DOM are sufficient. That is not the same as "therefore there is
no requirement to be able to read the content".
I had said:
  > add a P2 requirement to be able to navigate a Document tree (parent-child,
  > and sibling-sibling, moving each way). This is an extension of 7.6
  > 
  > Add a P2 requirement for document types which are not based on a container
  > model (i.e. does apply to HTML, does not apply to SMIL or SVG) to navigate an
  > outline constructed according to the algorithm ISO-HTML specifies (and WCAG
  > implies) for using Hx elements. (same requirements as for the actual tree).
IJ
  I don't like this ISO-HTML specific checkpoint. Why doesn't SVG have a
  container
  model? What is the "g" element? 
CMN  
SVG does have a container model - and therefore this checkpoint would not
apply to SVG. (My editorial bad).
IJ
  Can this just be a technique? Is there a URI to the ISO-HTML spec?
  If a URI isn't available (or if the ISO spec costs money) I am not
  excited about including it.
CMN
No, I do not consider that this can just be a technique. It is a requirement
to have a navigable structure, and HTML doesn't. We can specify the algorithm
ourselves rather than referring to ISO - I just wanted to save myself typing
something I believed everyone understood.
I had said   
  > Add a P3 requirement to navigate a tree configured according to checkpoint
  > 8.5 (i.e. as above but with the user able to configure what elements are
  > used as dividers in the algorithm). The user should be able to specify
  > elements, or elements with specific style properties. (Al's "show me the next
  > thing like this")
IJ  
  Ok.
  
CMN
This would apply to SVG. It is a strategy for dealing with the fact that poor
authoring may result in a large series of paths, only differentiated by style
properties. The gain in that circumstance might be minimal, but minimal is
better than nothing.
I had written: 
  > Rationale:
  > 
  > The requirement is that a person who has restricted ability to cope with a
  > lot of content at once (for example using an audio interface) and has limited
  > ability to navigate (for example using a restricted keyboard), can easily
  > work with a document such as a large table, a specification, or a section of
  > a text book (to name just a few of many possible examples).
  > 
  > It is possible to get to all the content by being able to read the document
  > forwards. however, in the case of a grid such as a table this may not make it
  > possible to understand what items are in what column. If the person can move
  > from the beginning of a column to the end of it, vertically, then this is
  > solved.
  > 
  > So an absolute requirement is to be able to do this.
IJ  
  We have already decided that this navigation mechanism is best handled
  by
  assistive technologies. I strongly object re-adding this requirement.
CMN  
As I understood it we had agreed that a visual technology had to layout the
things in table form and scroll up down left right with the viewport, plus
export the DOM so an assistive technology could provide whatever it wanted. I
didn't understand that we had therefore decided that the functionality wasn't
important, and if we had then I register my very strong disagreement with
that decision. 

charles

Received on Friday, 22 September 2000 09:13:22 UTC