Review guidance on success criterion 1.3.2

[mattgarrish]

Going back over the WCAG documents, I believe I understand the hesitance they had last time we discussed our focus on spine sequence.

Looking at our technique, the first part seems fine. The order of the markup within a page needs to make sense and it also needs to make sense across pages because we have to deal with two-page spreads in fixed layouts.

But that's different from ordering documents in the spine and marking non-linear items. This part of the guidance really isn't related to the sequence of markup within/across pages.

If documents aren't sequenced properly, the publication is broken. Period. It's a general usability problem for everyone, not specifically an accessibility issue.

I don't see that we need to spell this out for people, so I'd suggest we remove the text and examples from the technique.

[iherman]

The issue was discussed in a meeting on 2021-06-10

List of resolutions:

• Resolution No. 1: approve request in issue Review guidance on success criterion 1.3.2  #1695

View the transcript

3. Review guidance on success criterion 1.3.2

See github issue #1695.

Avneesh Singh: Avneesh_: actual text is at:cvhttps://w3c.github.io/epub-specs/epub33/a11y-tech/#access-001

Matt Garrish: this is about meaningful sequence of content, and meaningful sequence of documents
… sequence of documents isn't specifically an a11y issue, it's a basic requirement for the epub to function
… going into spine ordering and all this other stuff in this part of the Techniques might be irrelevant here
… maybe we can just strip this stuff

Gregorio Pellegrino: does it also apply to the hierarchical order of the headings?

Matt Garrish: I don't think that's an issue for this section, that would fall under headings
… this is more about having the reading order matching the visual sequence of the epub

Avneesh Singh: so we keep statement that the logical reading order applies across the epub, but leave out the stuff about spine, etc.

Charles LaPierre: how would this affect choose your own adventure style books where you might not have a logical progression?

Matt Garrish: I think that's again a separate issue
… in that example, there's still a reading order, its just that you decide that order based on your ability to access the links

Tzviya Siegman: this just explicitly spells out what most publishers do anyway, so there should be no problem with removing the example about the spine

Proposed resolution: approve request in issue #1695 (Avneesh Singh)

Tzviya Siegman: +1

Gregorio Pellegrino: +1

Matthew Chan: +1

Bill Kasdorf: +1

Will Awad: +1

Cristina Mussinelli: +1

Wendy Reid: +!

Wendy Reid: +1

Resolution #1: approve request in issue #1695