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

Re: Proposal deriving from checkpoint 2.1

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001 10:22:26 +1000
Message-ID: <15204.43202.183654.592435@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Cc: jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au, Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Kynn Bartlett writes:
 > What do we do, though, about encouraging people to have more than
 > one method?  (Yahoo is a good example of the need for this, and
 > a good example of this principle in action.)

I recognized this problem after posting the original proposal (and I
knew that Kynn would identify it). In the absence of firm criteria as
to when "more than one" search function or site navigation mechanism
is required, I would suggest the following (and anyone who has a
better proposal is welcome):

Provide at least one search function or site navigation mechanism.

With the success criteria as in my earlier proposal, but adding a note
explaining that when a site is complex (i.e., includes many resources,
with significant interrelations among them) it is advisable to provide
more than one search function or site navigation mechanism.

Instead of "site navigation mechanism" one could say "navigational
links", where navigational links would be defined as being logically
separate from the "body" of the content (i.e., the same definition
that I provided in my proposal for "site navigation mechanism"). To
simplify the checkpoint even further, at the expense of adding
definitions, one could say:

Provide at least one site navigation mechanism.

Definitions:

A site navigation mechanism is a search function or a system of
navigational links separate from the main body of the content (e.g., a
table of contents, an index, an image map etc.).

I think the terminology which I originally proposed is cleaner, but
opinions may well differ on this point.
Received on Sunday, 29 July 2001 20:22:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:11 GMT