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

Re: revision to 7.6 & priority levels of 8.4 & 8.5

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:38:50 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: "Gregory J. Rosmaita" <unagi69@concentric.net>, User Agent Guidelines Emailing List <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
I am going to consider your proposal to raise the priority levels of 8.4 
and 8.5 as a minority opinion, since changes in priority of these 
checkpoints was not raised during PR.  I will only bring it back before the 
group as issue if a significant number of other working group members also 
feel similarly.  I ENCOURAGE working group members to respond to this 
thread for there support or opposition to Gregory's proposal.

As a minority opinion, it will be forwarded with the document to last call 
and proposed recommendation with document.  Although I would suggest to 
strength your case with the director and other reviewers to explain why 
this opinion was not included as a minority opinion in the previous last 
call and proposed recommendation periods.


At 01:24 PM 9/26/2000 -0400, Gregory J. Rosmaita wrote:
>aloha, all!
>based on the discussion at today's supplemental teleconference, i would 
>like to propose the following, which i believe to be in line with the 
>consensus reached at the 26 september 2000 telecon
>7.6 Allow the user to navigate efficiently to and among important 
>structural elements identified by the author. For markup languages with 
>known semantics, allow forward and backwards sequential navigation to 
>important structural elements. For other markup languages, allow at least 
>forward and backwards sequential navigation of the document object, in 
>document order.
>    Note: Structured navigation of headings, tables, forms,
>    lists, etc., is most effective when available in
>    conjunction with a configurable view. Therefore, the user
>    should be able to configure and control which structural
>    navigational elements he or she wishes to move to, as
>    outlined in Checkpoint 8.5. User agents should follow
>    operating system conventions for indicating navigation
>    progress (e.g., selection or content focus).
>    Note: In HTML 4 [HTML4], the list of important elements
>    the list of important elements is: a, anchor, par, seq,
>    and switch. In SVG 1.0 [SVG], the important elements are
>    a and g.
>additionally, i would propose to raise the priority level of 8.4:
>8.4 Make available to the user an "outline" view of content, composed of 
>text labels for important structural elements (e.g., heading text, table 
>titles, form titles, etc.). The set of important structural elements is 
>the same required by checkpoint 7.6. [Priority 2]
>    Note: This checkpoint is meant to allow the user to simplify the
>    view of content by hiding some content selectively. For example,
>    for each frame in a frameset, provide a table of contents composed
>    of headings (e.g., the H1 - H6 elements in HTML) where each entry
>    in the table of contents links to the heading in the document. This
>    checkpoint does not require that the outline view be navigable, but
>    this is recommended; refer to checkpoint 7.6. For those elements
>    that do not have associated text titles or labels, the user agent
>    should use generate a brief text label (e.g., from content, the
>    element type, etc.).
>from priority 2 to Priority 1; as for checkpoint 8.5
>8.5 Allow the user to configure and control the outline view of checkpoint 
>8.4 to include and exclude element types. [Priority 3]
>    Note: For example, allow the user to configure the level of detail
>    of the outline. Refer also to checkpoint 8.4 and checkpoint 5.4.
>i propose to raise from Priority 3 to Priority 2
>why?  not only is it important to provide a pseudo-gestalt view for anyone 
>incapable of perceiving the spatial/graphical relationships between 
>components of the page without having to listen to the page in its 
>entirety, it is essential that such a user be able to make practical use 
>of the outline/pseudo-gestalt view.  moreover, it endows the user with the 
>ability to dip a toe into the water to see whether or not it is (a) safe to
>swim, (b) whether or not the page is the proper pool in which to dive, and 
>(c) whether or not repair needs to be performed upon the page with which 
>the user is attempting to interact.
>The optimist thinks that this is the best of all
>possible worlds; the pessimist knows it is.
>Gregory J. Rosmaita     <unagi69@concentric.net>
>       Webmaster & Minister of Propaganda
>The Visually Impaired Computer Users' Group of
>the New York City Metropolitan Area (VICUG NYC)
>      <http://www.hicom.net/~oedipus/vicug/>

Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
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 Wednesday, 27 September 2000 10:38:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:28 UTC