RE: REF 2.4b - a second required success criteria

Where does the seven comes from? Why 7 and not 5?
I don't think it has anything to do with Miller's 7 +/- 2 paper on short
memory. 

For example why shouldn't this apply to any group of links (where a
group may be as small 3, 4)? We could define the 'links group'  in
terms of performance: 

- how long does it take to perceive and interpret a 'skip links'
  button and activate it?  
versus
- how long does it take to perceive and interpret each link in a
  group, and tab over it?

If the link group is small enough that the time needed to skip over it
is higher than the time needed to tab through its links, then the
group size is too small.
 
John: do you think this might be a good rationale on how to determine
the group size to be mentioned in the success criterion?

LIFT detects navbars as small as 3 and suggests to wrap them within a
'skip links' button and named anchor. How would this behavior be
interpreted with respect to the suggested success criterion?


   Giorgio

John said:

  > Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 16:22:21 -0500
  > From: "John M Slatin" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
  > I agree that this is really important.  I'd propose a small editorial
  > change in the wording as well as a slight change in the actual criterion
  > (I'd like the requirement to be triggered when any group of links
  > includes 7 or more links, rather than just 8 or more...):
  >  
  > Proposed rewording (Gregg's original proposal is below for reference):
  >  
  > "#2 Users are able to skip over navigational bars or other groups of
  > seven or more links when reading with a synthesizer or navigating using
  > keyboard.

Received on Sunday, 13 July 2003 07:04:00 UTC