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

Re: [last call, S2] orient and navigate: same important elements

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 18:10:40 -0500
Message-ID: <3A11C670.A24AC7CC@w3.org>
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Al Gilman wrote:
> 
> Checkpoint 8.4
> 
> Where it says in the note
> 
>                            ... This checkpoint does not require that
>           the outline view be navigable, but this is recommended; refer
>           to [456]checkpoint 7.6.
> 
> This appears to be legacy language left over from before the 
> changes in 7.6 and 7.7.  It is quite unclear as it stands, 
> in that checkpoint 7.7 _does_ require that where there is 
> structural navigation provided pursuant to checkpoint 7.6,
> that this [8.4] outline view _does_ present the same selection of "important
> elements" as are the destinations reached via the navigation capability.
> 
> Or I thought that was what we thought we decided when we put the "same
> configuration" language in checkpoint 7.7.

That was not my understanding. At our 26 September teleconf [1],
we resolved to:

 [[[
  1. Make lists of important elements informative
  2. Make minimal navigation requirements forward and backward
  3. Use same configuration for important elements 7.6 and 8.4
  4. Talk about Al's and others functional requirements for identifying
     important elements (element type and number of resulting navigable
elements)
 ]]]

I commented that "8.4 and 7.6 are separated for a reason. 
The two are not inherently bound." One reason: an outline may
benefit people even if it's not navigable. Thus, a table of
contents in a paperback book is useful, but not navigable directly.

So my understanding is that the language you refer to is
not legacy but is still there intentionally. I thought that we
had decided that:

 - One requirement was for navigation of important elements.
 - One requirement was for an outline built of important elements.
 - The set of important elements was the same for both cases.
   For this reason, the requirement to be able to configure the
   set could be shared by both checkpoints.

 - Ian

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2000JulSep/0455.html

 
>    This version:
> 
> [9]<http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-UAAG10-20001023>http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/W
> D-UAAG10-20001023

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Tuesday, 14 November 2000 18:10:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:22 GMT