1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence:



***************NOTICE************************************************ 
                                                                                                       
  This work space is being phased out and is no longer kept        
  updated with the latest task force agreements. Please refer to  
  the most recent WCAG2ICT public draft at                                 
  http://www.w3.org/TR/wcag2ict/                                                  
                                                                                                       
************************************************************************* 


                                                                                                                              .
               <NEW TEXT TO SENT OUT FOR REVIEW #2                                     .
                                                                                                                                 
Success Criterion 1.3.2: Meaningful Sequence (Level A)

From Success Criterion 1.3.2:

When the sequence in which content is presented affects its meaning, a correct reading sequence can be programmatically determined.

Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.3.2 in Understanding WCAG 2.0:

The intent of this Success Criterion is to enable a user agent to provide an alternative presentation of content while preserving the reading order needed to understand the meaning. It is important that it be possible to programmatically determine at least one sequence of the content that makes sense. Content that does not meet this Success Criterion may confuse or disorient users when assistive technology reads the content in the wrong order, or when alternate style sheets or other formatting changes are applied.

A sequence is meaningful if the order of content in the sequence cannot be changed without affecting its meaning. For example, if a page contains two independent articles, the relative order of the articles may not affect their meaning, as long as they are not interleaved. In such a situation, the articles themselves may have meaningful sequence, but the container that contains the articles may not have a meaningful sequence.

The semantics of some elements define whether or not their content is a meaningful sequence. For instance, in HTML, text is always a meaningful sequence. Tables and ordered lists are meaningful sequences, but unordered lists are not.

The order of content in a sequence is not always meaningful. For example, the relative order of the main section of a Web page and a navigation section does not affect their meaning. They could occur in either order in the programmatically determined reading sequence. As another example, a magazine article contains several callout sidebars. The order of the article and the sidebars does not affect their meaning. In these cases there are a number of different reading orders for a Web page that can satisfy the Success Criterion.

For clarity:

  1. Providing a particular linear order is only required where it affects meaning.

  2. There may be more than one order that is "correct" (according to the WCAG 2.0 definition).

  3. Only one correct order needs to be provided.

Specific Benefits of Success Criterion 1.3.2
  • This Success Criterion may help people who rely on assistive technologies that read content aloud. The meaning evident in the sequencing of the information in the default presentation will be the same when the content is presented in spoken form.

Additional guidance when applying to Non-Web Documents and Software

This applies directly as written, and as described in INTENT from Understanding WCAG 2.0 (above) 


                                                                                                                             .
               </END of NEW TEXT TO SENT OUT FOR REVIEW #2                      .
                                                                                                                                 


at our meeting on 8/17/2012
we decided to 
RESOLUTION: Accept definition of content = information and sensory experience to be communicated to the user.

... Remove guidance on "content" from 4 SC where it's current included and discuss content definition used in "Understanding Key Terms" in the Introduction.


So that would change this to 

This applies directly as written, and as described in INTENT from Understanding WCAG 2.0 (above) .



<         PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM ARE ABOVE  >.   
 <  OUR RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE BELOW>




                                                                                                                                   .
               <TEXT AS SENT OUT FOR REVIEW ON  JULY 27TH                             .
                                                                                                                                   .

Success Criterion 1.3.2: Meaningful Sequence (Level A)

From Success Criterion 1.3.2:

When the sequence in which content is presented affects its meaning, a correct reading sequence can be programmatically determined.

Intent from Understanding Success Criterion 1.3.2 in Understanding WCAG 2.0:

The intent of this Success Criterion is to enable a user agent to provide an alternative presentation of content while preserving the reading order needed to understand the meaning. It is important that it be possible to programmatically determine at least one sequence of the content that makes sense. Content that does not meet this Success Criterion may confuse or disorient users when assistive technology reads the content in the wrong order, or when alternate style sheets or other formatting changes are applied.

A sequence is meaningful if the order of content in the sequence cannot be changed without affecting its meaning. For example, if a page contains two independent articles, the relative order of the articles may not affect their meaning, as long as they are not interleaved. In such a situation, the articles themselves may have meaningful sequence, but the container that contains the articles may not have a meaningful sequence.

The semantics of some elements define whether or not their content is a meaningful sequence. For instance, in HTML, text is always a meaningful sequence. Tables and ordered lists are meaningful sequences, but unordered lists are not.

The order of content in a sequence is not always meaningful. For example, the relative order of the main section of a Web page and a navigation section does not affect their meaning. They could occur in either order in the programmatically determined reading sequence. As another example, a magazine article contains several callout sidebars. The order of the article and the sidebars does not affect their meaning. In these cases there are a number of different reading orders for a Web page that can satisfy the Success Criterion.

For clarity:

  1. Providing a particular linear order is only required where it affects meaning.

  2. There may be more than one order that is "correct" (according to the WCAG 2.0 definition).

  3. Only one correct order needs to be provided.

Specific Benefits of Success Criterion 1.3.2
  • This Success Criterion may help people who rely on assistive technologies that read content aloud. The meaning evident in the sequencing of the information in the default presentation will be the same when the content is presented in spoken form.

Additional guidance when applying Success Criterion 1.3.2 to Electronic Documents and Software Aspects of Products:

This applies directly as written, and as described in INTENT from Understanding WCAG 2.0 (above) where content is interpreted to mean "information and sensory experience to be communicated to the user by means of ICT".



                                                                                                                                   .
         </ END OF 
TEXT AS SENT OUT FOR REVIEW ON  JULY 27TH    >            .
                                                                                                                                   .

Success Criteria 1.3.2: When the sequence in which content is presented affects its meaning, a correct reading sequence can be programmatically determined. (Level A)


Intent of WCAG Success Criteria 1.3.2  (Quoted from Understanding WCAG 2.0)

The intent of this Success Criterion is to enable a user agent to provide an alternative presentation of content while preserving the reading order needed to understand the meaning. It is important that it be possible to programmatically determine at least one sequence of the content that makes sense. Content that does not meet this Success Criterion may confuse or disorient users when assistive technology reads the content in the wrong order, or when alternate style sheets or other formatting changes are applied.

A sequence is meaningful if the order of content in the sequence cannot be changed without affecting its meaning. For example, if a page contains two independent articles, the relative order of the articles may not affect their meaning, as long as they are not interleaved. In such a situation, the articles themselves may have meaningful sequence, but the container that contains the articles may not have a meaningful sequence.

The semantics of some elements define whether or not their content is a meaningful sequence. For instance, in HTML, text is always a meaningful sequence. Tables and ordered lists are meaningful sequences, but unordered lists are not.

The order of content in a sequence is not always meaningful. For example, the relative order of the main section of a Web page and a navigation section does not affect their meaning. They could occur in either order in the programmatically determined reading sequence. As another example, a magazine article contains several callout sidebars. The order of the article and the sidebars does not affect their meaning. In these cases there are a number of different reading orders for a Web page that can satisfy the Success Criterion.

    [For clarity: 

        1. providing a particular linear order is only required where it affects meaning.
        2. there may be more than one order that is "correct" [(according to the WCAG 2.0 definition)]
        3. only one correct order needs to be provided.]

Specific Benefits of Success Criterion 1.3.2:

  • This Success Criterion may help people who rely on assistive technologies that read content aloud. The meaning evident in the sequencing of the information in the default presentation will be the same when the content is presented in spoken form.


<End of material Quoted from Understanding WCAG 2.0>


Additional guidance when applying to Electronic Documents and Software Aspects of Products

This applies directly as written, and as described in  INTENT  from Understanding WCAG 2.0  (above)  where content is interpreted to mean "information and sensory experience to be communicated to the user by means of ICT".


                                                                                                                                   .
</ END OF TASK FORCE CONSENSUS CONTENT FOR APPLICATION NOTE >.
              (only EDITORS should make edits above this line.                                      .
     -- and then only after text is approved by consensus by the Task force.              .
                                                                                                                                   .


FROM JULY 19 WCAG MEETING 

    * 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence
      WCAG WG thought that the note was better addressed in WCAG 2.0 intent as it is applicable to both web and software. They accepted 1.3.2 with the note removed from our guidance and agreed to add similar content to the end of the intent, slightly modified with additional text in [bold brackets] as

      For clarity: 

          1. providing a particular linear order is only required where it affects meaning.
          2. there may be more than one order that is "correct" [(according to the WCAG 2.0 definition)]
          3. only one correct order needs to be provided.



Pierce/Peter: Key issue that needs to be addressed somewhere (perhaps at 508/M376 level): if the user agent (e.g. word processor) allows documents to contain content outside of the main body text (e.g. header, footer, watermark text, background images), there needs to be a straightforward way for users to (a) easily find out there is text outside of the main body to be read, and (b) to read that text. (cf. UAAG 2.0 working draft SC 2.1.3 Viewport Navigation, which perhaps comes closest to this. 

Perhaps an ideal result from the blind users' point of view would be a single "summarize document" screen reader command that would note whether there was (one or more) header(s) and/or (one or more) footer(s) and/or any watermarks, along with telling the user what keystrokes are needed to reach them.  Of course the user agent must have such keystroke commands for getting to headers and footers that aren't so buried in menus and dialog boxes that they are overly cumbersome to use.  Then agencies' training of employees would include training on the use of that feature.

<         CONSENSUS WAS REACHED ON THIS ITEM.   
 Place any "Post-Consensus"  notes, including notes from public, ABOVE THIS NOTICE / >












PROPOSALS FOR  CONSENSUS TEXT =================

Insert your proposals for the text to go above.  Label each Proposal separately.  Trace has provided a startup proposal for each.   Below is a template.  Please copy it and leave a template behind for others to add their proposal.
 

Proposal #1 Revised (Trace Center) ========================

Additional guidance when applying to Electronic Documents and Software Aspects of Products

This applies directly as written, and as described in  INTENT  from Understanding WCAG 2.0  (above)  where content is interpreted to mean "any information and sensory experience to be communicated to the user including code or markup that defines the content's structurepresentation, and interactions".

Note that the INTENT for Success Criterion 1.3.2  in Understanding WCAG 2.0 makes it clear that: 

  1. providing a particular linear order is only required where it affects meaning. 
  2. there may be more than one order that is "correct"
  3. only one correct order needs to be provided.

<Note to TASK FORCE  this differs from WCAG definition of content in the following ways>
content (Web content)
information and sensory experience to be communicated to the user by means of a user agent,  including code or markup that defines the content's structure,presentation, and interactions


Proposal #x (Submitter) ========================

Additional guidance when applying to Electronic Documents and Software Aspects of Products


DISCUSSION POINTS, OPINIONS, ISSUES, NOTES etc. 

---- ISSUES-----

RE - Documents

Issue1: "An issue in multi-column text, embedded images, footnotes, headers/footers,etc.

      Note too role of user agent"

Question on Issue1: How different from WCAG?  Note that Understanding WCAG 2.0 makes it clear that linear order is only required where it affects meaning.

 

RE - Software

Issue1: "Tab nav. order within dialogs?  Between portions of the UI?  Note that apps aren't necessarily linear...

       In content, note things like Flows_From/FLows_TO relations"

Question on Issue1: Again – How different from WCAG?  -- given that Understanding WCAG 2.0 makes it clear that linear order is only required where it affects meaning.

Comment on above question on Issue1: The question is tied in part to the meaning of the word "content" for software.  While interactive user interface components in an application may have a "TAB order", that isn't the case for non-interactive elements (e.g. static text).  Nor is it the case for all software platforms (e.g. Macintosh, iOS).  While one can always infer reproducible order in which that information can be read (e.g. via a screen reader which might impose a top-left to bottom-right reading sequence), that isn't necessarily  the same as a "correct reading sequence".  Where the user interface components have no functional relationship to each other, there may be no "correct" sequence to them.


IBM comments on 2011 ANPRM, Appendix A (p. 21, 6 March 2012)
Software that is a part of a closed product shouldn’t have any requirement for programmatic information, as there is no assistive technology that can be attached to or installed on this class of ICT.  In this case, the information a user needs to know to operate the closed product must be presented to the user through a means that meets the Functional Performance Criteria.

2010 ANPRM Text (22 March 2010)
503.3 Logically Correct Reading Sequence.  When the sequence in which content is presented affects its meaning, a logically correct reading sequence shall be programmatically determinable.

Teitac Report (3 April 2008)
3-M: Reading Sequence
When the sequence in which information is presented affects its meaning, a reading sequence that conveys the intended meaning must be PROGRAMMATICALLY DETERMINABLE. The navigation sequence must be consistent with the reading sequence.
Note 1:  In order to achieve this provision, objects in data operated on by the software that can be presented in 2 dimensions, would need to be associated with sufficient information to identify a logical one dimensional presentation of the same objects, that the software can obtain as readily as it can obtain the 2 dimensional objects themselves.
Note 2:  For products with closed functionality the visual and (linear) audible presentation should match navigation


Comments