W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2004

RE: Guideline 2.5 Level 3 SC work item

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:27:40 -0600
To: <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>, "'Web Content Guidelines'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <auto-000181722895@spamarrest.com>

I think the problem is backward.  

The accessibility problem is twofold

- for cognitive and learning disability - spelling is a problem and picking
choices (when there is a short list) is good.  

- for blindness - accessing long lists is a problem and we want to encourage
the ability to type in an entry and not have to scroll and pick.  But typing
a part of the entry and jumping to it may work just as well.

These are not high level guidelines - but thing that are helpful (level 3)
to those who want to make sites that work well for people with disabilities.


So maybe we can focus on these two problems and just do what is best and not
try to recommend the world. 

 
Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Jason White
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 12:55 AM
To: Web Content Guidelines
Subject: RE: Guideline 2.5 Level 3 SC work item


Gregg Vanderheiden writes:
 > 
 > I like it. 
 > 
 > But maybe 75 is too high now for allowing them to enter by text as well.

 > 
 > I also wonder about requiring a list that contains all the city streets
in
 > the US just because you happen to know what they are when you ask for
 > someones street name. 

Or all the titles in a library of millions of books. In practice, text
search, in a more or less sophisticated form, is the only workable
solution.

Are we venturing here into the realm of good user interface advice
rather than accessibility guidelines? The interaction with user agents
is also a concern as previously noted.

I propose this s c be dropped.
Received on Tuesday, 14 December 2004 15:27:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:32 GMT