RE: Notes on 2.4 survey results

Is it possible that a site might want several skip links, to skip over
different sets of repeated content? That is, skip links to different
parts of the content? This starts blurring into a table of contents,
doesn't it.

If this is a technique we want to permit, however, they can't all be
first.  

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John M Slatin [mailto:john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu]
> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 11:18 AM
> To: Loretta Guarino Reid; public-wcag-teamb@w3.org
> Subject: 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 20:47:19 UTC