W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: escape, not skip, tank traps [was: Re: Inaccessibility of older Flash movies]

From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 09:11:33 -0400
To: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-id: <00a801c24e94$6e9ceea0$19e03244@DAVIDPOEHLMAN>

while we are on this, I have a couple of observations.

1> user agents are becoming quite effective at presenting structure when
well marked up even in simple html and assistive technologies and
platforms are taking advantage of this fact.  Given this, could we not
just advise in 2.0 that a heading be used to denote main content instead
of creating a new tag that people need to remember to write in or tools
will take time to implement?  xml of course will alleviate most if not
all of this.  I find it quite helpful when a site is well marked up to
be able to go directly to the content on a page I want when the links
are grouped correctly and headings are used.  we can now even move by
paragraph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Phill Jenkins" <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: escape, not skip, tank traps [was: Re: Inaccessibility of
older Flash movies]





>Al wrote:
>>...
>>My point here is that the skip-nav or its cousin here the skip-movie
link,
>>is something to do with what we have today; but that the answer for
the
>>future is not a 'skip' method but an 'escape' method that provides the
>>'skip' capability and more.  Navigation bars are just another sub-case
>>along with tables and movies.
>
>Charles wrote:
>>I agree with Al that the model of being able to get into a navigation
>>structure and get out of it at ny point is better than having to
decide
at
>>the beginning whether or not to follow the "skip navigation links"
link.
>>...

>Phill wrote:
>Well, we need both.

>Charles
>Agreed. What WCAG requires is that groups of links are identified and
>skippable. I think that is one bit, and that being able to escape a
block
is
>important. (That is a requirement in UAAG - checkpoint 9.9
>http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG/guidelines.html#tech-nav-structure in the
current
>draft). In addition, being able to get to "the start of the content" is
an
>important feature in navigation - like being able to get to a search
page
for
>any collection of pages (analogous to using the browser search for a
single
>page).
>
>I am not sure that it is explicitly identified as a requirement in
>WCAG 1.0 which has a short list of explicit structure requirements and
then
>requires "navigation bars"...
>
>Cheers

Phill writes:

Not only is it (skip to main content) not in WCAG 1.0, it's not in WCAG
2.0
either.  But I think "skip to main content" could fit in Checkpoint 3.3
Provide multiple methods to explore sites that are more than two layers
deep
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#nav-mech

WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 are too biased to the notion that structured
content
is the answer when in fact the structures in XHTML are too limited to
communicate more of the semantics of web pages and web applications
today.
If there was a "main content" tag, in addition to the "body" tag", then
that could mark the beginning of the "main content".  Additions of the
"top
navigation" tag, side navigation, advertisement, etc. tags would help in
further communicating not so much the "structure" but the intended
purpose
of the content that could then be presented and navigated by the
browser.
I'll take this thread and include it in my comments on WCAG 2.0

Phill Jenkins
Received on Wednesday, 28 August 2002 09:12:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:06 GMT