Re: Comments and questions on latest UA guidelines

I am astonished!

Al Gilman wrote:
>The critical failure in Lynx was when people could not find SUBMIT buttons
even
>though they clearly said SUBMIT in the rendered text.
That sounds like a Lynx problem. If they are submit buttons, then 'submit'
should be rendered by the user agent and thus be found in a standard page
search (find).

It was incredible to consider 'searching on attribute values' as a priorty
one item, even more to know the reason.

Jim Thatcher
IBM Special Needs Systems
www.ibm.com/sns
thatch@us.ibm.com
(512)838-0432



Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net> on 03/06/99 07:30:13 PM

To:   Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
cc:   Jon Gunderson <jongund@staff.uiuc.edu>, Catherine Laws/Austin/IBM,
      w3c-wai-ua@w3.org (bcc: James Thatcher/Austin/IBM)
Subject:  Re: Comments and questions on latest UA guidelines





At 04:10 PM 3/6/99 -0500, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>
>Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>>
>> Some comment/response pairs snipped entirely. My annotations begin CMN:
>>
>>   >5.3.3 [Priority 1]
>>   >     Allow the user to search for a link based on its attribute
values.
>>   >5.5.4 [Priority 1]
>>   >     Allow the user to search for a form control based on its
attribute
>>   >values.
>>   >
>>   >CL: I have seen several questions about which attribute values but no
>>   >answers. We are really interested in knowing which specific attribute
>>   >values an end user would be interested in searching for.  Should
these
>>   >checkpoints really be  a priority 1?
>>
>> CMN: probably not. (In my opinion).

This capability may be more critical than it at first appears.  The
critical failure in Lynx was when people could not find SUBMIT buttons even
though they clearly said SUBMIT in the rendered text.  It turns out that
the text 'SUBMIT' was not content but an element attribute.  Anything that
is going to show should be included in the text which can be found by a
search.  I don't know how to reword the checkpoint right away but this is
the capability that may yet merit Priority 1.

Al

Received on Saturday, 6 March 1999 22:40:59 UTC