Re: AERT and ATAG10-TECHS (using AERT Technique 13.6.1 as an example)

1.  One _can_ consider that 7.6 already indicates that (unspecified)
special processing for "MAP as navbar" is appropriate, if and only if the
"MAP is for navbars" rule is the "known semantics" of HTML.  We could make
it this way with perhaps an erratum clarifying the WCAG and specific
langauge calling out this example in the UAAG.

2.  Jump-to is perhaps not at the top of the priority list of functions for
the general navbar.  The function that was driving the urgency of this
matter is jump-past, motivated by repetitive groups of links at the start
of a page.  But this is covered in 7.6 without special treatment of MAP
apart from any other major structural unit type.  

3.  Jump-to-[next]-MAP-in-Page could be a convenience to have, but at least
as I see it, it fails to be necessary enough to merit an accessibility
checkpoint.  Better to handle it in a more general way through 8.4.
Provide a choice of intra-page restart points including all navbars and all
other starting points of comparable or greater significance within the
page.  If MAP elements are identified as navigation aids in this display,
the content classes as far as known should also be described.

Al

At 08:33 AM 2000-07-19 -0500, Jon Gunderson wrote:
>Resonses in JRG:
>At 12:02 AM 7/19/2000 -0400, Al Gilman wrote:
>>[First -- sorry Wendy, my bad -- I misread ATAG10-TECHS as a reference to
>>the WCAG [HTML] Techniques and so my references to ATAG10-TECHS were
>>nonsense.  But I still have a slightly different idea of what WCA agreed
>>with UA back then.. Read on]
>>
>>However, [Expletive!].  That "identify the group (for user agents)" bug is
>>in the WCAG itself.  The "for user agents" is a mistake.  The "identify the
>>group" was supposed to be for users: the TITLE on the grouping element.  I
>>fell down in not reading the drafts closely and often enough as it went on
>>to final.
>>
>>How to put it...
>>
>>Did we ask UA for special handling for MAP or did we not?
>
>JRG: There is currently no special handling of MAP in the user agent 
>guidelines.  Access to things markup as MAP would be covered under the 
>techniques for a number of checkpoints.  But most notably:
>
>7.6 Allow the user to navigate efficiently to and among important 
>structural elements identified by the author. For markup languages with 
>known semantics, allow forward sequential navigation to important 
>structural elements. For other markup languages, allow at least forward 
>sequential navigation of the document object, in document order. [Priority 2]
>
>8.4 Make available to the user an "outline" view of content, composed of 
>text labels for important structural elements              (e.g., heading 
>text, table titles, form titles, etc.). The set of important structural 
>elements is the same required by checkpoint 7.6. [Priority 2]
>
>What would people think about adding the following priority 3 checkpoint in 
>the User Agent guidelines, that would be an important special case of 7.6.
>
>"Provide one step access to the list of links that have been identified by 
>the author as navigational links [Priority 3]"
>
>in HTML this would be links contained in the MAP element.
>
>
>
>
>Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
>Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
>Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
>MC-574
>College of Applied Life Studies
>University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
>1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820
>
>Voice: (217) 244-5870
>Fax: (217) 333-0248
>
>E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
>
>WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
>WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
>

Received on Wednesday, 19 July 2000 11:39:07 UTC