W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > April to June 1999

Re: WCAG Curriculum: A navigation question.

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999 16:37:11 -0700
Message-ID: <37210427.7EC807E1@gorge.net>
To: E & O <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
CL:: "Is there a benefit to be able to link from any slide to the

WL: One thing to keep in mind when you propose modifications of the
navigation scheme is "what use is being made of the set?"  This group
may not be the best place to find the answer to your question because
the use we are making at this time is to check it out more than to
actually use it.

Were I using it as a sort of "programmed training" tool I might want to
go: GLTOC --> GL#n  --> CP#n.n --> CP#n.(n+1) until through with the CPs
(which is not clear except by overreaching and getting to CP#(n+1).1)
for that GL, thence back (through the GLTOC) to another (probably the
next) GL, etc.

So one question is whether the checkpoint slides have an indication of
whether there are any more checkpoints for a particular GL, possibly
even eschewing the capability of going from, say CPn.(last) -->
CP(n+1).(first) since that will be a new topic and may not fit in with
the intent of the "program".

OTOH if I were to use it as a sort of "running reference" I might prefer
to be leaping about more, thus want to go to the GLTOC without having
read the current slide, thus choosing a navigation system in which I
could use an arrow rather than the bar at the bottom.  

My general feeling is that the "up arrow" (if you add one) is going to
be hard to "intuitivize" because it might seem best as a sort of "smart
back button" and if one came into the CPs from a GL, go to the source
GL, but if from the CPTOC to return there.  It's trickier than it might
at first seem because there may seldom be a desire to go from a CP to
the overall CPTOC since one might be "ordinarily" expected to be looking
at a CP in relation to its GL rather than to other unrelated CPs.

I dunno, what do you think?  Whatever you do will locate other opinions
who feel that a different set of choices are "more intuitive" and the
best practice for those of us more familiar with the set may be "not so
best" for someone coming to it fresh - who will hopefully outnumber us
some day.

All that said, I think the up arrow is a good idea, particularly if it's
dynamically labelled.  The "next slide ALT" is OK but if it could be a
label instead of a tooltip it would be more exciting since it wouldn't
require "mouseover" to read and would give a "tree" sort of mapping by
being on all the arrows that might be instructive to the user.  I just
don't think the CPs are particularly related to each other so that when
one has available a "previous" that goes to a CP for a different GL,
which is arbitrarily related to the GL under study, or to a "next" which
takes one into new GL territory, it might tend to be diversive.
Received on Friday, 23 April 1999 19:36:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:29:28 UTC