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

RE: Proposal deriving from checkpoint 2.1

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 22:36:29 -0500
To: "'Wendy A Chisholm'" <wendy@w3.org>, <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>, "'Kynn Bartlett'" <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>, "'Web Content Guidelines'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001401c11c96$a5da3de0$b2176880@trace.wisc.edu>
Good analysis Wendy.

Couple of thoughts.

1 -   "Provide at least one site navigation mechanism.' Is not enough.
ALL sites provide at least one.  And that one is the links from page to
page.    I think it would at least need to be "Provide multiple site
navigation mechanisms".

2 -   "Provide multiple site navigation mechanisms".    Does seem a bit
general.   Also -- isn't one of the ideas to provide a site overview? Or
Summary or???

So I think we need to go to something more than just  "Provide at least
on site navigation mechanism"  but I don’t know what .   perhaps
something will strike when I do the 'criteria'  review.


-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Human Factors
Dept of Ind. Engr. - U of Wis.
Director - Trace R & D Center
Gv@trace.wisc.edu <mailto:Gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <http://trace.wisc.edu/>
FAX 608/262-8848 
For a list of our listserves send “lists” to listproc@trace.wisc.edu

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Wendy A Chisholm
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 12:53 PM
To: jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU; Kynn Bartlett; Web Content
Subject: Re: Proposal deriving from checkpoint 2.1

2.1 used to read:  2.1 Provide more than one path or method to find

This has all kinds of problems.  At the 26 July meeting [1] we
that it would be good to highlight the issues with input errors.  In the
July Draft, 2.1 reads:
2.1 Handle input errors, such as misspellings.

Jason had proposed that 2.1 read:

>Provide at least one site navigation mechanism.

The rest of the text of that proposal is at [2].

At yesterday's telecon [3] we determined we needed both checkpoints.

Our resolution: put Jason's proposed 2.1 as 2.1 (about various forms of
navigation). Move new 2.1 (about input errors) to end of section 2 and
with something like: "this is a new item that is being explored. We are
looking for input on wording, appropriateness, and possible pitfalls."
need to identify that it is generalized to "input errors" yet only
spelling. We discussed other input errors that were possible yesterday,
would like reviewers to think of others if possible.  If not, perhaps we

limit this to only spelling errors in the future (FUTURE ISSUE).

Kynn had concerns about the testability of Jason's proposed 2.1.

I propose that for the next draft, we include both checkpoints - as
discussed yesterday.  However, the success criteria for 2.1 (more than
navigation mechanism) needs a note similar to what we are doing for the
input errors checkpoint.

I'm still not sure that this really captures the issue.  The "what" is
people interact with content in different ways, therefore you ought to
facilitate the various interaction modes in order to benefit the widest
range of users.

Could we just say that?  "Provide a variety of interaction modes"
alert!)  This is similar to "Provide a variety of presentation modes"
is basically what 3.4 boils down to.



[1] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2001/07/26-minutes.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2001JulSep/0221.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2001/08/02-minutes.html

wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
seattle, wa usa
Received on Friday, 3 August 2001 23:43:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:38 UTC