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

RE: Proposal deriving from checkpoint 2.1

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Aug 2001 08:31:33 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20010804074647.00a1cc50@pop.erols.com>
To: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "'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>
Greg, Wendy and all,

         This checkpoint hits me square in the knees! I've mentioned my 
little fiefdom of interrelated sites, located on 3-4 different servers. The 
sites interlink among the servers as needed, but I have only one navigation 
scheme - namely links to other sections or pages, and links to outside 
sites.  Checkpoint 2.1 should help me decide what steps to take to increase 
the navigation of my sites (either individually, or collectively), but it 
should also address those who are planning a complex site from the git-go, 
and need to consider this at the beginning, not after they grow an octopus.

         Greg said that all sites provide at least one site navigation 
mechanism, but I wonder -- if a page (on a site or the only page on a site) 
has no links except to outside content (or is just content itself), what 
navigation mechanism is going on. I often make pages that are the "leaves" 
of the trees, which do not link to any other pages on the site, and the 
user must use the Back key to navigate backwards on the site ...

         I think I'm suggesting that telling folks to put at least one 
navigation mechanism on a site, and add navigational mechanism as the 
complexity of the site increases, would provide information to the hacks 
like me who grow pages willy-nilly to meet this or that need or 
inspiration, as well as provide guidance for those who plan complex sites.

         Would it be considered "part of a navigation mechanism", if at the 
bottom of all pages within a site, there was a link to the homepage of that 
site?  Would that constitute a "navigation mechanism". Is there a second 
"navigation mechanism" on the homepage that generally links to all the 
sub-pages? Suppose the homepage only links to a sub layer, (perhaps four or 
five pages), and the actual content is on the links from that sub-layer of 
pages. If the "layer" mechanism is used, is an index page then called for 
(I don't see the need for an index page if the front page lists all the 
pages on the site.). At some time, a search feature is necessary, but is it 
when a site grows to two pages, or ten pages, or 100 pages, or is that 
irrelevant?

         Wendy, your comments that 2.1 may need to be structured similarly 
to 3.4 to provide a wide range of possibilities and techniques, and trust 
the author or site designer to pick what suits the site in question best, 
is excellent. And I agree.

                                                         Anne


At 10:36 PM 8/3/01 -0500, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>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
>
>
>
>-- ------------------------------
>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
><mailto: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
>Guidelines
>Subject: Re: Proposal deriving from checkpoint 2.1
>
>2.1 used to read:  2.1 Provide more than one path or method to find
>content.
>
>This has all kinds of problems.  At the 26 July meeting [1] we
>determined
>that it would be good to highlight the issues with input errors.  In the
>31
>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
>mark
>with something like: "this is a new item that is being explored. We are
>looking for input on wording, appropriateness, and possible pitfalls."
>We
>need to identify that it is generalized to "input errors" yet only
>handles
>spelling. We discussed other input errors that were possible yesterday,
>but
>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
>one
>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
>that
>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"
>(jargon
>alert!)  This is similar to "Provide a variety of presentation modes"
>which
>is basically what 3.4 boils down to.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>--wendy
>
>[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
>/--

Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com

http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2001 08:36:23 GMT

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