W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: Proposed changes to Guideline 7

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 11:35:01 -0400 (EDT)
To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>
cc: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9906181132240.12150-100000@tux.w3.org>
In general I agree with Ian's proposals for guideline 7.

I think we should only have a single checkpoint - provide a search function,
and allow that search function to be configurable in the relevant guideline
(I will post some stuff on this in a minute).

Checkpoint 7.8: I think this should be "allow the user to navigate the
document structure". To minimally satisfy it, make it possible to move from
element to element. Techniques "for further credit" are to allow the user to
navigate the formal tree structure of the document (in the case of an XML
document, or well-formed HTML document) or to navigate an "outline" or table
of contents, generated according to some other algorithm. For example in HTML
it is possible to generate a table of contents based on the headings, and
assuming that the levels H1 - H6 are used to specify the appropriate nesting

(Yippee - my action item discharged at last!)

I agree with Jon about the necessity of structure navigation in some form.
Other strong cases are for people limited mobility, and screen magnification.


On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, Jon Gunderson wrote:

  >> JRG: I think that the navigation of the document tree is just one
  >> techniques and that it we should just have one checkpoint stating:
  >> "Allow the user to navigate all elements in the document."
  >> Priority: 1
  >> The tree navigation would be described as one way to acheive this.
  >Would this be for dependent user agents only? I don't think
  >it's a Priority 1 since you can get at content through other means.
  >I think perhaps Priority 2. 
  >My question remains on this point: what accessibility barriers
  >fall by being able to navigate all elements? Or is this for the
  >techniques document?
  JRG: I think it is one of the biggest and most fundamental problems the
  guidelines need to address, especially for visually impaired user to
  navigate (and identify) elements with in a document.  Try using a screen
  reader to read a document.  I think this should be a priority one for
  dependent user agents.  Since this would include navigation to active
  elements as well.
  >> >   a) Do we search on the document source or rendered content?
  >> >      At the teleconf, the Working Group expressed consensus that
  >> >      searching should be on rendered content only (recall: rendered
  >> >      does not mean only that which is in the viewport, but the
  >> >      entire document as rendered).
  >> JRG: I think we say the text content of elements.  With scripting some text
  >> content may not be rendered unless the user takes acton or turns off
  >> support for style sheets.
  >I guess we should ask these questions:
  > a) Are we talking about all user agents or dependent only?
  > b) Should users be able to search text hidden by style sheets?
  > c) Should users be able to search text in attribute values if not
  >    rendered?
  JRG: I think we should have three checkpoints related to searching and use
  the techniques document to highlight all of the possible choices and
  combinations related to functional searching.  
  Checkpoint 1: Allow the user to search the text content of a document
  (both, P1)
  Checkpoint 2: Allow the user to search the alternative content of a
  document (both, P2)
  Checkpoint 3: Allow the user to search the element attributes of a document
  (Dependent user agents only, P3)
  In the TECHNIQUES document related to searching this would be the major
  techniques that I would like to see (others could add to this list):
  1. Text content of elements (maybe I don't understand the technical jargon
  for this, but I mean the text between the element<element>XXX YYY
  ZZZZ</element>.  The basic type of search does not need to include
  searching attribute information.
  2. Text associated with alternative content or summary information with is
  mainly in attributes: TITLE, ALT, SUMMARY attributes
  3. A function that could look at the current attributes and element and
  look for the additional text content with the same type of element and
  attribute.  The scope of samness could be configurable by the user.
  4. Users could also configure what type of elements and attribute
  information they would like to have as a part of the "standard" search.
  Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
  Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
  Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
  University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
  1207 S. Oak Street
  Champaign, IL 61820
  Voice: 217-244-5870
  Fax: 217-333-0248
  E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
  WWW:	http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund

--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA
Received on Friday, 18 June 1999 11:35:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:23 UTC