Issue 233: Proposed wording for checkpoint 7.6

Hello,

Per my action item of 2 May [1], please consider this
proposed rewording for checkpoint 7.6 (about structured 
navigation).

[1]
http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/2000/05/wai-ua-telecon-20000502.html#minutes

<OLD>
7.6 Allow the user to navigate according to structure. [Priority 2] 
       For example, allow the user to navigate familiar elements 
       of a document: document headings, paragraphs, tables and
       table cells, lists, etc. Note. Use operating system
       conventions to indicate navigation progress (e.g., 
       selection or content focus). 
</OLD>

<NEW>
7.6 Allow the user to navigate efficiently to and among
    important pieces of content identified by the 
    author. [Priority 2] 
 
    User agents should allow users to:
      1) Navigate to a piece of content that the
         author has identified as important according
         to the markup language specification and
         conventional usage. In HTML, for example,
         this includes headings, forms, tables, navigation
         mechanisms, and lists.
      2) Navigate past that piece of content (i.e.,
         avoid the details of that component).
      3) Navigate into that piece of content (i.e.,
         chose to view the details of that component).

      Structured navigation is most effective when available in
      conjunction with a configurable view (checkpoints 8.5 and
      8.6). Users should be able to navigate to important 
      pieces of content within a configurable view, identify
      the type of object they have navigated to, interact with
      that object easily (if its an active element), and recall
      the surrounding context (orient themselves).
</NEW>

Techniques (in conjunction with the existing techniques and
            those mentioned in the References listed below).

   User agents should construct the navigation view with the goal
   of breaking onolithic content into sensible pieces according to
   the author's design. In most cases, user agents should not break
   down content into individual elements for navigation; element
   by element navigation of the document object does not meet the  
   goal of facilitating navigation to important pieces of content.

   Instead, user agents are expected to construct the navigation
   view from author-supplied markup. For those languages with
   known conventions for identifying important components, user
   agents should construct the navigation tree from those components,
   allowing users to navigate to them, skip them, or navigate into them.
   In HTML, important elements including headings, tables, forms,
   DIV elements (notably with a "title" attribute set), navigation
   mechanisms (marked up with MAP), and lists. 
   HTML also allows authors to specify keyboard configurations
   (accesskey, tabindes), which can serve as hints about what the
   author considers important. Tables and forms illustrate the
   utility of a recursive navigation mechanism. The user should be
   able to navigate to tables, then change "scope" and navigate within
   the cells of that table. Nested tables fit nicely within this
   scheme. The same ideas apply to forms: users should be able to
   navigate to a form, then among the controls within that form.

   In SVG, the "g" element signifies a grouping and should be considered
   when constructing the navigation view. In SMIL, "par", "seq",
   and "switch" provide information that may be useful for identifying
   significant components of content.

   Users should be able to configure the navigation view as they
   go, expanding and contracting portions of content that they
   wish to examine or ignore. This will speed up navigation
   and promote orientation at the same time.

Notes:

 - The term "important" is used in WCAG 1.0 [2]:
   "Information in a document is important if understanding 
    that information is crucial to understanding the document."
   This is not quite the meaning intended here, I believe. 
   As I have understood the WG's discussions, the goal is to be
   able to reach "blocks" of content, not "information" that
   is semantically important. We might assume that blocks of
   content are generally semantically important, but that cannot
   be guaranteed. For instance "DIV" may be used purely to
   provide a green background to some content, and DIV is a block
   element.

  [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WAI-WEBCONTENT-19990505/#glossary

 - This checkpoint looks a lot like the "chunk navigation" checkpoint
   we used to have, though this one is a little more general.

References:
 
     Structural Navigation (Al Gilman):
      
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0188.html
   
     Navigation issues (Al Gilman):
      
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0278.html

     20 April UAAG minutes
      
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0183.html

     27 April UAAG minutes
      
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0242.html

     2 May UAAG minutes
      
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0274.html 
  
     4 May WCAG/UAAG joint teleconf:
      
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000AprJun/0282.html

 - Ian

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

Received on Friday, 5 May 2000 15:11:38 UTC