W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: Action Item: 2.1 Proposal (Navigation)

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 22:18:09 -0500
Message-Id: <200103200318.WAA6938352@smtp2.mail.iamworld.net>
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
At 11:28 AM 2001-03-19 -0500, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
>Oops, I meant to say that I think navigation is a subset of interaction.

This is a question of how much abstraction we can get the reader to follow.

When we talk about consistency of interaction, people will think of things
key bindings and icon to action bindings.  Reasonably local stuff.  And
reasonably explicit.

Navigation, they think of the structural patterns used to put the content
together.  The structure that one navigates is relatively implicit, and
far-reaching.  People don't think of navigation as their interacting with the
document.  The illusion is that there is a scroll of paper behind that scroll
window and the scroll with the text on it doesn't change, one just scrolls it
past the viewport.  One is clearly interacting with the state of one's view of
the content when one navigates.  Forms and next/previous buttons and the like
people are more likely to conceptualize as interaction.  So I would be careful
about merging the discussion of these two.

Funny, we just had the same question come up in the User Agent Guidelines



>>>      ISSUE:  Should there be a separate checkpoint for navigation
>>>      consistency?  If so, how do we define navigation consistency?
>>I think navigation is a subset of navigation and therefore a separate 
>>checkpoints is not necessary.
>>wendy a chisholm
>>world wide web consortium
>>web accessibility initiative
>>madison, wi usa
>>tel: +1 608 663 6346
>wendy a chisholm
>world wide web consortium
>web accessibility initiative
>madison, wi usa
>tel: +1 608 663 6346
Received on Monday, 19 March 2001 22:18:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:36 UTC