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

Re: Proposal for checkpoint 7.6 (my action item)

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 13:36:51 -0400 (EDT)
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
cc: WAI UA group <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0009251055020.12463-100000@tux.w3.org>
Actually there are other cases. Well-written hypertext contains its own
navigation already, but there is a large amount of content on the Web that is
not produced as hypertext, but as marked-up text. Reading a large document
(for example an RFC) presented as marked-up text presents the same problem,
with a tank-trap of large blocks of content. (It would be better if all
documetns were written as hypertext, but at the moment they aren't.)

Charles

On Mon, 25 Sep 2000, Al Gilman wrote:
[snip]
  Please read the details (below) too.
  
  Al
[snip]  
  AG::
  
  Sorry, this is going to be hasty.  I have been wanting to do a more
  professional writeup but I know you are having a meeting tomorrow where you
  need to consider this.
  
  a) So far as I know the only justification for the P2 priority is the "top
  links tank trap" problem.  Otherwise structural navigation is a convenience
  but not an access necessity [only 1 vote].

[lots more well written thought on the topic]
Received on Monday, 25 September 2000 13:36:51 GMT

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