W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 1999

Re: Evaluation results: Navigation

From: Wendy A Chisholm <chisholm@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 11:17:30 -0600
Message-Id: <199903141721.LAA24240@trace.wisc.edu>
To: c.g.colwell@herts.ac.uk (Chetz Colwell), w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Chetz and Helen,

a few comments and questions (chetz's original text marked with CC:: my
responses marked with WC::):

>Participants were observed to perform two types of 'finding' task while
>using the Guidelines: finding a topic initially; and re-finding a section
>after reading it or seeing a reference to it.  They had difficulties with
>both of these tasks, for several different reasons.
>Problem with initial finding:
>The Table of Contents does not currently support authors in finding
>guidelines for particular topics, such as images, frames, forms (although
>it is an improvement on previous versions).
>Potential solution:
>* Perhaps in addition to the existing list of guidelines in the Table of
>Contents, a list of HTML topics could also be provided.
Did participants not make use of the Checklist of Checkpoints?  The
checklist is organized by topic and points back to the Guidelines document.

>Problem with re-finding:
>Several factors seemed to contribute to the difficulties with re-finding
>sections or references to sections, including the ability to keep track of
>which document was being viewed.
>When Participants followed a link from the Guidelines to the Techniques
>they did not seem to be aware that they had moved into a different
>document; the transition was almost too seamless.  Participants were
>observed to follow a link to the Techniques and then scroll up to try to
>return to the link they had followed, as if they were still viewing the
>same document.
>Potential solutions:
>* Link text could be modified to include information about which document
>the destination of a link is in. (See below for more on link text.)
yes, others have made this comment as well.  We are addressing this problem.

>* Could the final URL be made shorter and less complex?  A participant
>pointed out that the URL was interfering with their usual strategy for
>keeping track of where they were: it was too long to fit in the status bar
>of their browser which meant they could not check the destinations of
>links.  They also said that it was too complex to easily spot when it
>changed when they moved between documents.
All of the URLs between the Guidelines doc, the Techniques doc and the
checklist of checkpoints are relative, thus they should be no longer than a
few words (this was a change that may not have been in effect in the
version that participants used).

>* Could the section numbers indicate the current document, such as G1.1 or
>T2.2?  Is there a way in which the numbering could match across the
>documents, for example, could G1.1 relate to T1.1?
hmmm.  New section numbering is an interesting idea.  Unfortunately, since
the Techniques document and the Guidelines document are organized
differently (Guidelines by issue, Techniques by issues then HTML topics) i
don't think we will be able to synch them up as suggested.

other thoughts?

>There may be other solutions to this which are visual in nature, such as
>colour-coding, but non-visual solutions are more difficult to identify.
>Related problem: Link text.
>Participants often found that links did not take them where they expected,
>for example:
>- In Guideline 2 it is not clear where the link "important" goes to.
>- In Guideline 2 the link "long description" goes to information on long
>descriptions, whereas the link "a long description" in Checkpoint 2.1 goes
>to examples.
>- In Checkpoint 1.3 the link "provide a text equivalent" goes to examples
>for imagemaps, whereas the link "provide a text equivalent" in Checkpoint
>2.2 goes to examples for images.
>Don't the Guidelines (or the Techniques) state somewhere that links with
>the same text should go to the same destination?
yes, we have violated our own guidelines.  thanks for pointing this out.
We will remedy this.

>Potential solution:
>* If a link is to a definition, or examples, or further description this
>could be indicated, for example, <link> definition of important, <link>
>examples of long descriptions for imagemaps, <link> further information on
>long descriptions, etc.

>* It may also help if the document is indicated as well as the content at
>the destination, such as <link> Techniques for providing text alternatives
>for images.  This link text is rather long, but it clearly indicates the
>destination of the link.
these are interesting proposals.  we will try them out.

>Related problem: position of links.
>In Checkpoint 1.1 the link "Provide text equivalents for all images" goes
>to Techniques Checkpoint 1.1 (examples) where the first few words are a
>link with same text, "Provide text equivalents for all images", back to
>Checkpoint 1.1 in the Guidelines.  In both locations the first words an
>author would read are a link to somewhere else.  This is the case for many
>Potential solution:
>* The link text could indicate that it links to some examples, and could
>also be moved from the beginning of the Checkpoint to the end, for example:
>1.1 <no link> Provide text equivalents for all images [Priority 1]
>For example, in HTML, use the "alt" attribute of the IMG and INPUT
>elements, or for OBJECT, use "title" or the element's content. <link>
>Examples of providing text equivalents.
>This could be applied to many of the Checkpoints.
i believe this is what the other WAI guidelines have done.  This is a good

>Finally, Checkpoint 15.5 recommends the use of a site map. A participant
>suggested that the Guidelines could use one because it can be difficult to
>navigate between the documents.
<grin>  hopefully we can find a solution that makes it less confusing.  if
not, maybe we'll have to create an example of an accessible site map.

thanks again chetz and helen!!
*great* comments,
Received on Sunday, 14 March 1999 12:21:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:29 UTC