W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2002

RE: Search function options

From: Lee Roberts <uce@roserockdesign.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 12:21:13 -0500
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NFBBJHFEOLAGEICMIMBPMEKDCEAA.uce@roserockdesign.com>
I'm thinking that a search function would fall
more into 5.4 since it is basically a user
interface.  A search function would not fall into
4.3 simply because it would not necessarily be a
complex operation, no fashion of abbreviated, and
there are no summaries or definitions.

What would be the alternative to a search
function?  Well, I haven't looked in quite some
time now, but search engines used to have a help
page.  On the help page the engine provided
examples on how to do various searches.  I've seen
too many times where a search wouldn't accept the
pipe as an OR statement.  I've also seen searches
that don't accept the plus sign for AND searches.
Therefore, I would recommend that we require a
link to a help page so that people can understand
how the searches are performed and what
declarations can be used to handle AND, NOT, NOR,
and OR searhes.


  In WCAG 1.0 there was

  13.7 If search functions are provided, enable
different types of searches for different skill
levels and preferences. [Priority  3]

  this doesn’t appear specifically in 2.0

  this sounds like it should be part of either
OPERABLE or UNDERSTANDABLE.  I think it goes in
understandable since it sounds like the different
forms are provided because a person wouldn’t
understand a more complex form.

  It also doesn’t sound like a high level
checkpoint with  level 1 criteria, but rather a
success strategy under another.

  I was thinking it was 4.3 ish.  (

  Checkpoint 4.3 [3.5] Annotate complex,
abbreviated, or unfamiliar information with
summaries and definitions

  But instead it might be 5.4.

  Checkpoint 5.4  Ensure that user interfaces are
accessible or provide an accessible alternative.

  If your search function is not clear and simple
and easy to operate,  then you should provide an
alternative that is.
Received on Sunday, 28 April 2002 13:29:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:41 UTC