W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: Inter-document navigation

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 22:06:37 -0400 (EDT)
To: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
cc: "w3c-wai-au@w3.org" <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9904132203440.23704-100000@tux.w3.org>
I would propose expanding the definition of 3.2.2 to include tools whose
scope is wider than a single document. Given the explanation of scope in
the intro to the guidelines I think this can best be made clear in the
techniques, and would reinforce the idea that the scope of our deifinition
of authoring tool needs to be considered, each kind of tool needs to be
considered in teh context of the content it produces - be that image,
page, site, database-backed intranet, etc.

Charles

On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Jan Richards wrote:

  Jan Richards wrote:
  > General musing: the difference between (1) an authoring tool site map,
  > (2) a site map placed as content in a document and (3) site displays by
  > browser-OS hybrids could get very fuzzy depending on implementation
  > details. Should we explicitly mention that all methods for navigating to
  > and accessing documents for editing must be accessible?
  
  As a reply to myself I propose a checkpoint for 3.3 (Provide accessible
  navigation) to expand this guideline to inter- as well as intra-document
  navigation:
  
  Ensure that all methods for navigating to and identifying documents for
  editing are accessible.
  
  Jan Richards
  jan.richards@utoronto.ca
  ATRC
  University of Toronto
  

--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA
Received on Tuesday, 13 April 1999 22:06:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:52:54 GMT