W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > July to September 2000

Re: Proposal for [structural navigation]

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 11:05:42 -0400
Message-Id: <200009251450.KAA825780@smtp1.mail.iamworld.net>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
I hope that the length of my last screed does not obscure the fact that I
agree with what Jon has said, here.

I believe that achieving a general solution is on the agenda but it
requires coordinated changes in formats and algorithms and can't be
accomplished unilaterally within the scope of UAAG 1.0.

Yes, we should mention this in the CG.  On the other hand I suspect that PF
is going to be the next to act in this area, when we submit suggested
requirements for XHTML 2.0.  We would greatly benefit from what UA has
learned when we consider this issue next Monday.  Which we need to mention
to CG, too.  [Done.]

If we accept that the ultimate solution is beyond our grasp within the
immediate opportunity presented by the release of this document, we can
perhaps still be a bit clearer in what we do say in this release.  For
that, please consult the earlier message that I sent.

Al

At 09:13 AM 2000-09-25 -0500, you wrote:
>Response in JRG:
>At 09:05 AM 9/25/2000 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>>OK. This makes sense to me, so I withdraw the proposal for navigating table
>>cells.
>>
>>I agree that the place to  repair HTML is in the HTML WG, but there may be
>>many reasons why a document is not constructed with a container model. HTML
>>is just one example of a type that is rarely created in this way.
>>
>>An alternative approach is to require that any outline (for example provided
>>in accordance with 8.4) be navigable parent-child and sibling-sibling. This
>>is weaker than my original proposal, since it is not clear how such an
>>outline is constructed. I agree that there is a problem with the specificity
>>of my proposal. An alternative would be to propose to the WCAg group that
>>they make explicit their requirement for structure, in such a way that a
>>checkpoint of this kind could refer to it. But that will also be complex.
>>
>>Charles
>
>JRG: I agree with Ian that we need specifications that enforce structure 
>before we can have any strong stance in user agent to use that structure 
>for navigation purposes.  I will raise this issue with the coordination 
>group.
>
>It seems to me that most navigation techniques are unproven at this point, 
>so it makes it difficult for the group to take any strong stance on any 
>particular technique.  Different techniques have been proposed to be useful 
>for people with various skills in different situations.  I think at this 
>point we need more general approaches to highlight the navigation problems 
>and with minimal requirements that benefit all users.
>
>Jon
>
>
>
>Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
>Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
>Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
>MC-574
>College of Applied Life Studies
>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
>WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
> 
Received on Monday, 25 September 2000 10:46:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:14 GMT