RE: Notes on 2.4 survey results

The rule of thumb I suggest when people ask "When is a kip link
necessary?" is that sites with 5 or more links repeated on every page
need a skip link.

I think the skip link should come before that-- preferably the first
link, no later than the third one.

The SC requires that "repeated blocks of material" can be bypassed. If
we take that literally, the skip link shold come before *any* block of
repeated material-- i.e., should be the first item in the delivery unit.

Thoughts?

John

"Good design is accessible design."

Dr. John M. Slatin, Director 
Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin 
FAC 248C 
1 University Station G9600 
Austin, TX 78712 
ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524 
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu 
Web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility 



-----Original Message-----
From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lguarino@adobe.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 1:06 PM
To: John M Slatin; public-wcag-teamb@w3.org
Subject: RE: Notes on 2.4 survey results


I'm making the editorial changes suggested in the approved surveys. 

In his comments on "General technique for SC 2.4.3: Skip to main
content", Ben asks: 
"Also in procedure, I think we should clarify first few - can we put a
number on this? if it's fifth, does it pass?"

Do we want to pick a number? 

Loretta Guarino Reid
lguarino@adobe.com
Adobe Systems, Acrobat Engineering 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org [mailto:public- 
> wcag-teamb-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John M Slatin
> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 8:34 AM
> To: public-wcag-teamb@w3.org
> Subject: Notes on 2.4 survey results
> 
> 
> Hello again,
> 
> Here's the email mentioned in the agenda for Tuesday-- summarizing the
> results from the most recent survey on GL 2.4 issues and
> techniques
> 
> 4 unanimous or unanimous with editorial comments)
> 1 item back to Team B with clear instructions; will need
> to be reviewed
> again by people who submitted comments to make sure we've addressed
> their concerns
> 4 items need discussion-- possible solutions are provided
> 
> Unanimous/unanimous with editorial (4 items)
> *	SC2.4.2 Table of contents
> *	General technique for SC 2.4.3: Skip to main content
> *	SC 2.4.8 technique on breadcrumb trails (14-1),
> comments re
> modifying Description (Michael) and link-separator
> characters
> (Christophe)
> *	HTML technique for link element and navigation (all
> comments
> editorial)
> 
> 
> Comments clear; take back to team update and get review
> from people who
> submitted comments to make sure the changes address their concerns(1
> item)
> SC 2.4.2, 2.4.8 Site map (9-5-1)
> 
> Clarify that site map does not have to include links to
> all pages on the
> site and that all site maps must be accessible (see GV's comment about
> the various diagrams, etc.). Address Tim's comment re
> testability of
> "important"
> 
> Needs discussion so comments can be addressed (4 items) *Delete SC 
> 2.4.1 (8-6-1)
> 
> Possible solution: Keep SC 2.4.1, Team B to write
> suggested techniques
> and failures. Use comments from Michael, John, and David
> to update
> Intent section of How to Meet SC 2.4.1. Do a new survrey
> when How to
> Meet and techniques and failures are ready for review.
> 
> 
> Michael provides detailed rationale and useful suggestions
> re using <a>
> and other elements specifically for navigation; also
> useful failure
> techniques Ben agrees with Michael
> 
> Alex wants discussion before deciding
> Andi thinks we could resolve Michael's concern by adding
> <a> as
> sufficient technique under 1.3.1, but this doesn't address Michale's 
> or John's concern about other technologies or the failure
> technique(s)
> Michael suggests
> David votes to keep, offers additional failures and
> rationale
> 
> *Reword SC 2.4.3
> Possible solution: Accept proposed wording after replacing "are
> available" with "are repeated" as per multiple comments.
> Ask Christophe
> to clarify his comment on the <nl> element in XHTML 2.0.
> 
> 
> 
> *2.4.3 Skip links visible ((9-3-3)
> Possible solution: make clear that this is one of several
> *sufficient*
> techniques, not a required technique Commentors (Ben,
> Alex, Andi, Becky)
> don't want to outlaw the "traditional" 1x1 gif with skip
> to main
> content.
> 
> *Proposed wording for SC 2.4.5 (8-0-7)
> Possible solution: Does John's proposed wording make SC
> 2.4.5 more
> acceptable? The SC would read <proposed> Each programmatic reference 
> to another delivery unit or to another location in the same
> delivery unit
> is programmatically associated with text describing the
> destination,
> unless the description would violate the purpose of the
> link or
> invalidate the activity presented by the content.
> </proposed>
> item back to Team B for further work. Ben thinks the
> technique proposed
> for deletion might be sufficient in some cases, e.g. if
> technology
> doesn't support programmatic association of link with
> descriptive text .
> GV, Alex, Andi  reject or move to L3.Tim move to L3.
> David proposes adding sufficient techniques discussed on
> list (Don
> Evans, John Slatin).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Good design is accessible design."
> John Slatin, Ph.D.
> Director, Accessibility Institute
> University of Texas at Austin
> FAC 248C
> 1 University Station G9600
> Austin, TX 78712
> ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
> email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
> web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Good design is accessible design."
> 
> Dr. John M. Slatin, Director
> Accessibility Institute
> University of Texas at Austin
> FAC 248C
> 1 University Station G9600
> Austin, TX 78712
> ph 512-495-4288, fax 512-495-4524
> email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
> Web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility
>

Received on Friday, 3 February 2006 19:18:16 UTC