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

Re: More materials for preparation for todays discussion of grouping links in the telecon

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 09:59:48 -0400 (EDT)
To: thatch@us.ibm.com
cc: A.Flavell@physics.gla.ac.uk, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9908300958370.22552-100000@tux.w3.org>
Because, as I argue in the message, it is an issue for people with fine motor
control or cognitive disabilities to separate what is a link. And as I
suggest I think it is something that can be easily clarified. (I agree with
you that it does not seem to be a problem for blind users. But not all
accessibility problems are.)

Charles McCN

On Mon, 30 Aug 1999 thatch@us.ibm.com wrote:

  
  
  Hi Charles,
  
  Below you argue that the mainline two browsers and lynx each allow you navigate
  individual links, independent of having normal text between the links. Same is
  true, therefore, for screen readers and its true for HPR and other talking
  browsers. So why do you conclude: quote So I would suggest that in the future we
  should ask for sepaaration of links, since it is important endquote .
  
  This discussion may be academic, since when I responded to a Alan's question, I
  was not aware of the status of the guideline to separate links with normal
  (non-link) text.
  
  Jim Thatcher
  IBM Special Needs Systems
  www.ibm.com/sns
  thatch@us.ibm.com
  (512)838-0432
  
  
  Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org> on 08/29/99 10:02:20 PM
  
  To:   James Thatcher/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
  cc:   A.Flavell@physics.gla.ac.uk, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
  Subject:  Re: More materials for preparation for todays discussion of   grouping
        links in the telecon
  
  
  
  
  
  To look at it another way.
  
  Lynx allows the user to move from link to link, whether or not they are
  separated by anything. It also allows the user to view the links, one per
  line. This should enable pretty much anything to cope.
  
  Explorer and Netscape (on most platforms) allow you to tab through links,
  again regardless of whether they have separating characters.
  
  So I would suggest that in the future we should ask for sepaaration of links,
  since it is important, but that the separation only needs to be clear. For
  example, visually they should be seperated, for example by ckear space.
  
  At a techniques level, it can be argued that clear space can in fact be a
  part of the link, so long as there is an obvious part that is a link. For
  example in an image map it may be the case that an image is entirely divided
  into a dozen links. If the image is a series of words, spaced as if a phrase,
  and which make sense as a phrase, it is not immediately clear how to separate
  the links. This is worse if some of the links are larger than others. But if
  each link has extra space around it they are separated.
  
  The issue applies to motor and cognitive disabilities. Sadly, I don't have
  any usability data on the seriousness of the effect, which makes it difficult
  to determine the priority of the requirement.
  
  Charles McCN
  
  On Sat, 28 Aug 1999 thatch@us.ibm.com wrote:
  
  
  
    I am note sure, but I think there were dependent agents (screen readers) that
    didn't separate links lacking normal text between them. I don't know of any
  that
    have that problem today. So if the recommendation to separate links with
  normal
    text is still there, it probably should be removed.
  
    Jim Thatcher
    IBM Special Needs Systems
    www.ibm.com/sns
    thatch@us.ibm.com
    (512)838-0432
  
  
    "Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@a5.ph.gla.ac.uk> on 08/28/99 01:19:35 PM
  
    Please respond to A.Flavell@physics.gla.ac.uk
  
    To:   James Thatcher/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
    cc:   w3c-wai-ua@w3.org, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
    Subject:  Re: More materials for preparation for todays discussion of
  grouping
          links in the telecon
  
  
  
  
  
    On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 thatch@us.ibm.com wrote:
  
    > Window Eyes has skip to next non-active element. That often helps,
    > but not when authors put normal "[", "]" and "|" around links!
  
    That's unfortunate, because I had been going to extra trouble to
    separate active links with non-active non-blank characters just like
    that, as a result of an earlier accessibility recommendation :-}
  
    While I guess we'll all agree that this business is built on
    compromise, I'm now wondering whether the optimal compromise may have
    shifted...?
  
    best regards
  
  
  
  
  
  --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
  
  
  
  

--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 Monday, 30 August 1999 09:59:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:00 GMT