- From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 22:18:09 -0500
- 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. >--w > 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 like 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 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2001JanMar/thread.html#415 Al > >>> 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. >> >>--w >> >>-- >>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