- From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@crosslink.net>
- Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 19:09:25 -0500
- To: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>, "Sean B. Palmer" <sean@mysterylights.com>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Wendy, The technique in Front Page was a "for whatever it's worth" ... MS may consider it a "hack" of their program <grin> .... Yes, each day I work with the kids using the pages on http://www.geocities.com/apembert45 , I see a preference for the fewest words ... perhaps a preference for an verb in it .... print map of xxxx, see pictures of xxx, etc. I can't promise I have enough time to collect hard data, but it's happening as I watch! Anne At 11:52 AM 1/19/01 -0500, Wendy A Chisholm wrote: >Anne, > >I have included the AU WG on my response to address the 2nd issue you raise. > >My understanding of your message is: >1. in your experience, the children that you work with are less likely to >follow "in your face" URLs so therefore you support adding something to the >techniques document. > >2. One way that you are able to create text links is using IE and FrontPage >reader and you've outlined those steps as a proposal to add to our >techniques document. > >3. Another observation you have made is that children and perhaps also >people with CD and LD find shorter links easier to navigate. > >I'll respond to each of these: >1. I'm glad we have some informal data to back up and provide more >rationale for avoiding "in your face" URLs. > >2. Currently, we do not have any techniques that are specific to one >authoring tool. People have requested this information but we have not >provided any yet. Since these are both Microsoft products, I think it >would be more appropriate for them to produce something that we could point >to. Ideally a document that shows how to work with their tools to follow >all of the WCAG checkpoints - ala Guideline 6 in the Authoring Tool >Accessibility Guidelines [1]. What do others think about this? Does >Microsoft have documentation online that we can refer to from the >techniques to help people make the connection between WCAG and the tool >they are using? What about other authoring tools? > >3. People in general seem to find shorter links easier to use - assuming a >link has been given enough context so that it's destination is clear. User >Interface Engineering discusses link length in their book "Web Site >Usability: A Designer's Guide" which is based on a series of usability >studies. Jakob Nielsen also discusses link length in his book "Designing >Web Usability." Links that are too short can be ambiguous and confusing. > >[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/ATAG/#gl-provide-help >--w > > >At 06:54 PM 1/18/01 , Anne Pemberton wrote: >>Wendy, >> >> As I considered your addition to techniques, I thought about the >> web page >>that the 2nd graders are now using pretty regularly in the lab >>http://www.geocities.com/apembert45 ... some of the links go to old stuff, >>and two pages that the students use (Thanksgiving and Halloween) were pages >>used in print and just converted to html and hung on the web ... the links >>are all "in your face" URL's, and many kids avoid these pages and use only >>the newer ones for King and Israel ... (it may be that kids who use the >>Internet at home and are used to "clicking on the underlined blue letters" >>are more adventuresome) ... Links of one or two words are easier for young >>children (perhaps CD and LD folks, even ordinary folks) to navigate ... >> >> There is an easy "technique" to do it in Front Page, perhaps other >>authoring tools - 1) pull up page in Front Page, minimize 2) Pull up IE; 3) >>go the the target site; 4) copy address from window; minimize IE; 5) paste >>address to desired place in page, press enter; 6) move cursor to somewhere >>inside address now in link color and underlined; 7) Insert words for link; >>8) delete the original link before and after the inserted words. .... >>(Words for link can be the title of the page, the site, or the type of >>activity, etc. whatever suits the surrounding page ...) >> >> Anne >> >> >> >> Anne >> >> >>At 03:18 PM 1/18/01 -0500, Wendy A Chisholm wrote: >> >Trying to resolve this thread... >> > >> >In WCAG 1.0 this relates to checkpoint 13.1 - Clearly identify the target >> >of each link. [Priority 2]. Techniques are discussed in the section 6.1 >> >Link text of the HTML Techniques for WCAG [1] >> > >> >In WCAG 2.0 this has been wrapped into checkpoint 2.1 Provide consistent >> >interaction behaviors and navigation mechanisms. >> > >> >I think in the techniques we can write more about "consistency" of >> >navigation mechanisms (such as links) and one of the recommendations that >> >we think should be consistent is only using "in your face URLs" in cases as >> >have been described in this thread - in footnotes when the page will be >> >printed, when specifically identifying a web site for someone to read >> >(again, usually for printing or presentation/discussion purposes), etc. >> > >> >Therefore, for the time being I propose adding something to section 6.1 of >> >the HTML Techniques for WCAG. This eventually should appear in the Core >> >Techniques as it applies across languages - but for something to quickly >> >point to and something that 's easy to change how is that for a first stab? >> > >> >[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#link-text >> >[2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#consistent-behaviors >> > >> >--wendy >> > >> >At 10:21 AM 1/18/01 , Sean B. Palmer wrote: >> >> > reading something on a web page and then wanting to email >> >> > it to you, so I copy-and-paste and send it to you. The links >> >> > will be lost during that process. >> >> >> >>Good point. I wonder if in the future there will be different kinds of >> >>copying mechanisms: copying media and converting it into text form? For >> >>example, if I select a Web page, and copy the text, it should convert the >> >><img alt=""> to their alt attributes, and <a href=""> to their href >> >>attributes... Maybe AU would be interested in that? >> >> >> >> > Printability is one of the primary reasons for this; >> >> >> >>That's always the major reason. Even in 5/10 years time when CSS is more >> >>generally accepted, I don't think there will be many changes. People will >> >>still feel the need to have in-your-face URL's because of the "pre-CSS >> >>browsers"... and that is a problem. If 99% of people haven't got a gimmick >> >>that makes pages more accessible, do you have to provide fallback >> >>mechanisms for those 1%, and cause problems for the 99%? The answer appears >> >>to be yes... >> >> >> >> > Stylistically, I think inline "in your face" URLs are generally >> >> > nasty unless they specify a simple site address, such as >> >> > "the W3C's WAI (www.w3.org)". [Yes, I know that's a machine >> >> > name, not a URI, >> >> >> >>Well, it's a domain name. Yes, they are generally accepted, and most >> >>browsers will take them if you type those in... but what if one didn't? Oh, >> >>and I think you might want the (www.w3.org) after the "W3C" not the "WAI"? >> >> >> >> > If a URL is going to be directly stated, I feel it should be >> >> > given by itself, and not inline; >> >> >> >>Yes, or as a reference at the foot of the email. Maybe we should have a >> >>techniques document for plain text :-) >> >> >> >>Kindest Regards, >> >>Sean B. Palmer >> >>@prefix : <http://infomesh.net/2001/01/n3terms/#> . >> >>[ :name "Sean B. Palmer" ] has :homepage <http://infomesh.net/sbp/> . >> > >> >-- >> >wendy a chisholm >> >world wide web consortium >> >web accessibility initiative >> >madison, wi usa >> >tel: +1 608 663 6346 >> >/-- >> > >> > > >-- >wendy a chisholm >world wide web consortium >web accessibility initiative >madison, wi usa >tel: +1 608 663 6346 >/-- >
Received on Monday, 22 January 2001 19:09:11 UTC