- 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