- From: Chetz Colwell <c.g.colwell@herts.ac.uk>
- Date: Sat, 13 Mar 1999 12:32:25 +0000
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
<message 2 of 8>. Hi, Participants were observed to perform two types of 'finding' task while using the Guidelines: finding a topic initially; and re-finding a section after reading it or seeing a reference to it. They had difficulties with both of these tasks, for several different reasons. Problem with initial finding: The Table of Contents does not currently support authors in finding guidelines for particular topics, such as images, frames, forms (although it is an improvement on previous versions). Potential solution: * Perhaps in addition to the existing list of guidelines in the Table of Contents, a list of HTML topics could also be provided. Problem with re-finding: Several factors seemed to contribute to the difficulties with re-finding sections or references to sections, including the ability to keep track of which document was being viewed. When Participants followed a link from the Guidelines to the Techniques they did not seem to be aware that they had moved into a different document; the transition was almost too seamless. Participants were observed to follow a link to the Techniques and then scroll up to try to return to the link they had followed, as if they were still viewing the same document. Potential solutions: * Link text could be modified to include information about which document the destination of a link is in. (See below for more on link text.) * Could the final URL be made shorter and less complex? A participant pointed out that the URL was interfering with their usual strategy for keeping track of where they were: it was too long to fit in the status bar of their browser which meant they could not check the destinations of links. They also said that it was too complex to easily spot when it changed when they moved between documents. * Could the section numbers indicate the current document, such as G1.1 or T2.2? Is there a way in which the numbering could match across the documents, for example, could G1.1 relate to T1.1? There may be other solutions to this which are visual in nature, such as colour-coding, but non-visual solutions are more difficult to identify. Related problem: Link text. Participants often found that links did not take them where they expected, for example: - In Guideline 2 it is not clear where the link "important" goes to. - In Guideline 2 the link "long description" goes to information on long descriptions, whereas the link "a long description" in Checkpoint 2.1 goes to examples. - In Checkpoint 1.3 the link "provide a text equivalent" goes to examples for imagemaps, whereas the link "provide a text equivalent" in Checkpoint 2.2 goes to examples for images. Don't the Guidelines (or the Techniques) state somewhere that links with the same text should go to the same destination? Potential solution: * If a link is to a definition, or examples, or further description this could be indicated, for example, <link> definition of important, <link> examples of long descriptions for imagemaps, <link> further information on long descriptions, etc. * It may also help if the document is indicated as well as the content at the destination, such as <link> Techniques for providing text alternatives for images. This link text is rather long, but it clearly indicates the destination of the link. Related problem: position of links. In Checkpoint 1.1 the link "Provide text equivalents for all images" goes to Techniques Checkpoint 1.1 (examples) where the first few words are a link with same text, "Provide text equivalents for all images", back to Checkpoint 1.1 in the Guidelines. In both locations the first words an author would read are a link to somewhere else. This is the case for many Checkpoints. Potential solution: * The link text could indicate that it links to some examples, and could also be moved from the beginning of the Checkpoint to the end, for example: 1.1 <no link> Provide text equivalents for all images [Priority 1] For example, in HTML, use the "alt" attribute of the IMG and INPUT elements, or for OBJECT, use "title" or the element's content. <link> Examples of providing text equivalents. This could be applied to many of the Checkpoints. Finally, Checkpoint 15.5 recommends the use of a site map. A participant suggested that the Guidelines could use one because it can be difficult to navigate between the documents. Regards, Chetz and Helen. ----- Chetz Colwell and Helen Petrie, <c.g.colwell@herts.ac.uk>, <h.l.petrie@herts.ac.uk>. Sensory Disabilities Research Unit, University of Hertfordshire, UK. Tel: +44 1707 284629 Fax: +44 1707 285059
Received on Saturday, 13 March 1999 07:39:21 UTC