- From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
- Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:31:14 -0700
- To: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, w3c-wai-eo@w3.org
At 02:33 PM 10/24/00 -0400, Judy Brewer wrote:
>the two tables links go to different places
The question that was raised on the call that I was trying to illustrate
was whether we should link to WCAG or curriculum. I was merely providing a
means of evaluating which (if any) of these targets was more appropriate
for our purposes. I haven't gone through to see how many links would be
called for and won't undertake doing any until we decide if we even want to
do this. I certainly won't make multiple links from the same word if it
appears often.
The reason for putting the link to yet another link instead of directly to
the target is that there will be download time annoyance - this to be
weighed against the 2 vs.1 click situation. I am on a slow connection but
once I've cached the target document, it is much more convenient to only
have to make one click - also "back" returns you to where you were reading
instead of the "basement."
I am a heavy proponent of inline hypertext links, the more the better. They
are easy enough to skip if you don't need any referencing but they get the
additional information painlessly. For someone who grew up racing around in
library stacks this is heaven.
As I experimented with the two targets I came to feel strongly that the
proper one for this document is the curriculum. Its language is similar to
the referring source and the guidelines are just sort of "cold". The people
reading these scenarios are IMO likelier to be comfortable with the text on
the slides than in the guidelines.
--
Love.
ACCESSIBILITY IS RIGHT - NOT PRIVILEGE
Received on Tuesday, 24 October 2000 17:32:13 UTC