W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > July 2000

Re: AERT Technique 13.6.1 and the WCA:UA agreements of yore

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 18:51:33 -0400
Message-ID: <3978D3F5.BAFFFD5E@w3.org>
To: "Leonard R. Kasday" <kasday@ACM.org>
CC: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
"Leonard R. Kasday" wrote:

>What happens if you have a link hierarchy, e.g. a series of headings each 
>of which  is a link, and each of which has a list of links 
>underneath  (e.g. the Yahoo home page).  How does map apply?

Put a MAP around nested UL lists.

> But even if we had MAP, there would still
> be plenty of semantics that are not readable.  For example, if we had a
> page with lots of sets of links, where's the main navigation bar?  And
> there are other semantic units that have nothing to do with links.... e.g.
> "main section" "news" etc. that we often see. So MAP would address only a
> part of all the semantics that are needed anyway.  That means we do one of
> the following, seems to me:
> 1. waiting for XML

I don't think that that's an option. XML is already here. We need
to do the right thing for XML. I think the question is what to do
for HTML.

> 2. defining conventions for class names  (hey, we accept D links)

D-links don't require anything from the user agent. But asking user
agents to recognize classes that are not defined in the HTML
is problematic to me. It could be done - the UA Guidelines could require
that conforming user agents handle some predefined classes in a special
way - but I think that the HTML spec is the appropriate place for this
type of information.

> 3. defining conventions for titles  (well, I gotta have a third alternative)

> As you might guess, my vote is for 2, defining conventions for class
> names.  I realize this was discussed in WCAG and it didn't fly, but perhaps
> it's time to reconsider.

Here's a nice HTML trick that works with Lynx:
Define links to key parts of a page with the LINK element

    <link rel="start" href="#headline" title="Go to headline |"/>
    <link rel="contents" href="#contents" title="Go to table of contents
    <link rel="index" href="#search" title="Search"/>

   Lynx renders these as links, but they do not show up on most
   graphical browsers. Thus the author can create skip-over links
   even if the UA doesn't support structured navigation to or
   past groups of links.

 - Ian

> Note that even if we wait for XML, that just postpones deciding on the
> semantic units.  So why not figure them out now, stick them in class for
> the time being, and then re-use them when XML arrives.
> Len
> At 04:12 PM 7/20/00 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> >I think I am just slightly keener on people recognising that they need to use
> >map than you are...
> >
> >Cheers
> >
> >Charles McCN
> >
> >On Wed, 19 Jul 2000, Al Gilman wrote:
> >
> >   At 12:18 AM 2000-07-19 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> >   >My thoughts and recollections, vague as they may be
> >   >
> >   >No, I think GL is correct - it is to identify for user agents (ie through
> >   >markup such as map). We have asked for both handling of map, and the more
> >   >general structural navigation you speak of.
> >   >
> >
> >   I am quite likely alone in my particularly pharisaical interpretation of
> >   what was agreed to in the joint meeting as regards "use MAP for related
> >   groups of links."  The clause "when you need to add a grouping element" was
> >   probably a loophole that I was perceiving and quite possibly nobody else.
> >
> >   I did bad things for the WAI interest in a similar way when the namespaces
> >   Rec went by and I placed a stricter interpretation (less constraining) on
> >   what it said than the proponents understood.  Their interpretation was what
> >   they promoted in public as for example on xml-dev and that leaves us with
> >   the conflicts exposed on xml-uri.  I should have dealt with what they
> >   thought the language meant, and protested more strongly at the time.
> >
> >   As you can tell from my message to the CG, I think that the best way to
> >   seek a good agreement that we can stick with into the future is to take
> >   Wendy's hint and view this as "in the light of what has transpired in UA
> >   since, it is worth revisiting this question."  Hope this works for people.
> >
> >   Al
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
> >W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
> >Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053
> >Postal: GPO Box 2476V, Melbourne 3001,  Australia
> --
> Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D.
> Institute on Disabilities/UAP, and
> Department of Electrical Engineering
> Temple University 423 Ritter Annex, Philadelphia, PA 19122
> kasday@acm.org
> http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday
> (215) 204-2247 (voice)  (800) 750-7428 (TTY)
> The WAVE web page accessibility evaluation assistant:
> http://www.temple.edu/inst_disabilities/piat/wave/

Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Friday, 21 July 2000 18:51:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:30 UTC