Thread Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 provisions we have not yet looked at
This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.
From: Peter Korn
Date: Wed, Jun 27 2007 5:30 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: WCAG 2.0 provisions we have not yet lookedat"
- Previous message in thread: Tom Brett: "Re: WCAG 2.0 provisions we have not yetlookedat"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
> I fully concur with adopting this WCAG 2 language for this standard:
> "* 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence: When the sequence in which content is
> presented affects its meaning, a correct reading sequence can be
> programmatically determined and sequential navigation of interactive
> components is consistent with that sequence."
This is addressed/being addressed in the content format proposal, of
which web/HTML content is I think a proper subset. The proposed
language is: "A content format shall provide an encoding mechanism to
indicate a logical linear reading order of all content contained within
it." Please see this in item #4 at:
language is more encompassing than 1.3.2, as it applies all of the time
(and not just "When the sequence... affects its meaning").
As a (former, lapsed) mathematician, I was once able to prove that in
virtually all cases one can construct a liner order through any data set
(there are a very few conditions that apply to such a data set, and
web/document content complies with those conditions).
> As I stated over the weekend, I strongly believe the following standard
> should be reintroduced and included in the 508 standards:
> "* 3.3.1 Error Identification: If an input error is automatically
> detected, the item that is in error is identified and described to the
> user in text."
I'm not managing to easily find detailed records of these discussions in
order to review them. I do have concerns about how we would implement
this in all cases, especially when we have multiple errors to be
identified in one user validation/interaction. Perhaps our W3C/WAI
friends can join this discussion with illustrations for how this might
be handled, we might be able to successfully re-open this discussion and
move forward with it in a more satisfying way.
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi
> Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 8:32 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] WCAG 2.0 provisions we have not yet looked
> Thanks to Drew LaHart for comparing the latest WCAG 2.0 draft with our
> current recommendations to identify additional WCAG 2.0 provisions we
> should consider. 
> This was a great exercise because it identified one provision that we
> had closed on that I had neglected to include in our submission to the
> The net is that we have 4 Level A provisions and 6 Level AA provisions
> to consider for our 508 recommendation. There are an additional 7
> provisions that we have already considered and rejected.
> Please review these and register your comments on the list. We will
> discuss adding these to our recommendation at next week's meeting.
- Next message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: WCAG 2.0 provisions we have not yet lookedat"
- Previous message in Thread: Tom Brett: "Re: WCAG 2.0 provisions we have not yetlookedat"