- From: Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 17:14:25 -0800
- To: WAI-UA list <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Hi All, I have the text of SCs up top. You may want to skip to the discussion and use these for quick reference. 1.11.1 Access Relationships: The user can access explicitly-defined relationships based on the user's position in content (e.g. show form control's label, show label's form control, show a cell's table headers). (Level A) 2.5.3 Location in Hierarchy: The user can view the path of nodes leading from the root of any content hierarchy in which the structure and semantics are implied by presentation, as opposed to an explicit logical structure with defined semantics (such as the HTML5 Canvas Element), or as a consequence of decentralized-extensibility (such as the HTML5 item / itemprop microdata elements), and only if the user agent keeps an internal model of the hierarchy that it does not expose via the [DOM] or some other accessibility mechanism. (Level A) . Jan Richards Substitute 2.5.3 The user can view the path of nodes leading from the root to the current focused element. Comment: This does change the meaning, but it is doable? I am not sure that the semantics of all presentational relationships can be identified or defined programatically once the author created them. 2.5.5 Access to Relationships which Aid Navigation: The user can access explicitly-defined relationships based on the user's position in content, and the path of nodes leading from the root of any content hierarchy to that position. (Level AA) Ambiguities with 2.5.5: Discussion: What is the difference between 1.11.1 and 2.5.5. Also, what does "the root of any content hierarchy to that position" mean? What if the path from an arbitrary node with explicitly defined relationships involves many such relationships. Are they all displayed? Issues: Should these structures should be navigable? Neither 1.11.1 nor 2.5.5 say that the information about the path from the root to the point of interest can be navigated. Is that the intent? Does 2.5.5 want there to be access to navigation across explicitly defined relationships? Reccommendations Adopt Jan's Language for 2.5.3. Merge 1.11.1 into one SC. If navigation should be active place it in 2.5 otherwise leave it in 1.11.
Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2012 01:15:00 UTC