W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: Editorial nits in UAAG10

From: gregory j. rosmaita <oedipus@hicom.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 18:21:09 -0500
Message-ID: <000301c0b326$c7e55ac0$7eb6f5d0@igor>
To: <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Cc: <ij@w3.org>, <hbingham@ACM.org>
aloha, ian!

thanks, as usual, for your expeditious replies...  in reference to the issue
of embedded navigational links, you wrote,

quote
a) If you are at the end of Guideline N and wish to read Guideline N+1,
   I don't see the need for a next guideline link; you simply go
   to the next line of text.

b) It would seem like what would be useful is "back to the beginning
   of this same guideline". Maybe "previous guideline" is useful. Back
   to the TOC is fine too.
unquote

you have a valid point about reaching Guideline N+1 from the end of
Guideline N...  i've wrestled with similar predicaments in the past, when
marking up directories and other documents where there are many
sub-sections, but whenever i've left out or removed "Next Section" links,
users of those documents complained to me that there wasn't a "Next" link...
why?  because there is actually a very good reason for including a "Next
Guideline" link--if it is the first link in a sub-navigational grouping of
links, it serves as that grouping's "Skip Navigational Links" link, for,
since the user encounters it first, he or she can use it to jump over the
remaining navigational links without scrolling or otherwise manually
manipulating the viewport...

personally, i would be quite satisfied if users were presented with the
following options upon reaching the end of a guideline--for argument's sake,
Guideline 5:

1. "Return to the beginning of Guideline 5"
2. "Previous Guideline"
3. "Table of Contents"

but having the "skip navigational links" functionality that a "Next
Guideline" link provides, i think, would be worth the effort it would take
to add it to the script...

gregory.
Received on Thursday, 22 March 2001 18:19:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:38 GMT