Action-722 Access to Relationships

Jan and I had a task to review all the sc that concern relationships.
We have not had time to meet. Jan did send me 7 SC that address
relationships. (1.2.3, 1.10.2, 1.10.3, 1.11.1, 2.5.3, 2.5.5, and
2.5.7)

this message concerns the overlap of 1.10.3 and 2.5.7

1.10.3 Configure Elements for Outline View: The user can configure the
set of important elements for the outline view, including by element
type (e.g. headers). (Level AAA) [Under GL 1.10 Alternative View]

2.5.7 Configure Elements for Structural Navigation: The user can
configure the sets of important elements (including element types) for
structured navigation and hierarchical/outline view. (Level AAA)
[Under GL 2.5 Structural Navigation]

These are nearly identical in wording, are the same level, and address
the same concept. I think they should be combined and put in 2.5.7.
While providing an outline view alone is useful, having the outline
view act as a navigation aid is more useful. 2.5.7 is more general
allowing for configuration of setS of elements (for different
purposes)


*** I propose eliminating 1.10.3, keeping the wording of 2.5.7

Intent of Success Criterion 1.10.3:
Sometimes authors will visually convey relationships between elements
by spatially grouping them, by giving them the same coloration or
background, and so forth. Users may not be able to perceive those
attributes, such as when using a screen reader, or when strong
magnification makes it difficult to make a mental model of the screen
layout. In those cases the user agent can assist by providing a view
of the data that groups elements that that user agent perceives as
implying relationships.
Examples of Success Criterion 1.10.3:
    Jane uses a mobile device (and is often situationally impaired)
and often encounters tables laid out using floating DIV elements with
specific class names denoting the visual styling. In this case Jane
cannot use the cursor keys to move around these tabular layouts having
instead to use the tab key to move sequentially left-to-right
top-to-bottom. Jane's browser allows her to configure important
elements and so she can pick out the classes associated with thes
element, and therefore use the cursor key to move logically through
columns or rows.

Intent of Success Criterion 2.5.7 :
Often the user agent will choose by default the elements it considers
important for structured navigation, however these may not be relevant
in all circumstances. It may be that the user wishes to navigate via
informal mechanisms such as microformats, decentralised extended
elements, or via a particular styling which is used to convey a
structure in the visual navigation, but which does not exist in the
element hierarchy.

Examples of Success Criterion 2.5.7 :
    Fred is blind and wishes to navigate through the menu structure
using the Tab key, however the menu is a set of nested list elements
with a particular HTML class attribute denoting the menu-submenu
relationship. Because Fred's user agent allows him to configure
important elements he can explicitly include the class name as an
important element for navigation. He then assigns a keyboard shortcut
to navigate to the next element with the same class name as the
element that has the focus.
    Jane's browser allows her to configure important elements and so
she can pick out the classes associated with these DIV element, and
therefore use the cursor key to move logically through columns or
rows.


*** I propose merging the intents and examples:

Intent of Success Criterion 2.5.7 :
Sometimes authors will visually convey relationships between elements
by spatially grouping them, by giving them the same coloration or
background, and so forth. Users may not be able to perceive those
attributes, such as when using a screen reader, or when strong
magnification makes it difficult to make a mental model of the screen
layout. In those cases the user agent can assist by providing a view
of the data that groups elements that that user agent perceives as
implying relationships.
Often the user agent will choose by default the elements it considers
important for structured navigation, however these may not be relevant
in all circumstances. It may be that the user wishes to navigate via
informal mechanisms such as microformats, decentralised extended
elements, or via a particular styling which is used to convey a
structure in the visual navigation, but which does not exist in the
element hierarchy.

Examples of Success Criterion 2.5.7 :
    Fred is blind and wishes to navigate through the menu structure
using the Tab key, however the menu is a set of nested list elements
with a particular HTML class attribute denoting the menu-submenu
relationship. Because Fred's user agent allows him to configure
important elements he can explicitly include the class name as an
important element for navigation. He then assigns a keyboard shortcut
to navigate to the next element with the same class name as the
element that has the focus.
   Jane uses a mobile device (and is often situationally impaired) and
often encounters tables laid out using floating DIV elements with
specific class names denoting the visual styling. In this case Jane
cannot use the cursor keys to move around these tabular layouts having
instead to use the tab key to move sequentially left-to-right
top-to-bottom. Jane's browser allows her to configure important
elements and so she can pick out the classes associated with thes
element, and therefore use the cursor key to move logically through
columns or rows.

[deleted second example from original 2.5.7, it was a more terse
version of the example from 1.10.3. The example in 1.10.3 include
better explanation.
-- 
Jim Allan, Accessibility Coordinator & Webmaster
Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired
1100 W. 45th St., Austin, Texas 78756
voice 512.206.9315    fax: 512.206.9264  http://www.tsbvi.edu/
"We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." McLuhan, 1964

Received on Thursday, 12 April 2012 17:00:38 UTC