- From: Marja-Riitta Koivunen <marja@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 17:08:02 -0400
- To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
At 04:01 PM 4/8/00 -0400, Marja-Riitta Koivunen wrote: >>MRK:: >> >>> >>>What I would add to the site, is to have a graphical navigation bar to >>>illustrate the site structure instead of textually saying to continue to >>>the next page and other textual links. That navigation bar should give >>>feedback about where the users are (what they selected) and where they can >>>go (other items in the navigation bar). >>> >> >>AG:: >> >>Links covering a neighborhood of where you are now is a navigation resource. >> >I agree. I definetely didn't mean to leave textual links out, but rather to >add spatial layout and images that structure the page and help to find the >navigation links more easily. > >>Indented table of contents bar is best current presentation of this on Web >>today. Sorry, now I see that this was actually meant to be a TOC with Yahoo style hierarchy. I didn't read the headings so carefully (as is actually quite common with many users) and after several selections ended up to http://www.peepo.com/access/examples/alt.html with no info at all of where I was. What is confusing to me is that the headings are currently not consistently keeping the navigation bar information on top (e.g. http://www.peepo.com/access/alt_tags.html or http://www.peepo.com/access/examples/alt.html) or using the exact words in the user selected link on the bar (e.g. http://www.peepo.com/access/ -> http://www.peepo.com/access/contents.html, or http://www.peepo.com/access/contents.html -> http://www.peepo.com/access/design.html). Has someone tested these kinds of step by step TOCs with CD users? Are they better than other alternatives? Marja
Received on Saturday, 8 April 2000 17:14:19 UTC