Re: Proposal deriving from checkpoint 2.1

Kynn,

         I've heard of extreme cases but never before "Edge cases" .... but 
it the term speaks to you, use it. I've now heard of it! <grin>

         The rest of the reply is inline with deletions ....

At 12:00 PM 7/30/01 -0400, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
>At 11:02 AM -0400 2001/7/29, Anne Pemberton wrote:
>
>>consider the simplest site, consisting of one page of content. What 
>>navigation mechanism is needed for such a site?
>
>Ah, there's an easy trap to fall into.  You don't measure content in
>terms of _pages_.  A page is just an arbitrary chunk of content presented
>in one medium.  What might be a "page" on a web site could be six panels
>of a tri-fold brochure if printed out.

>And of course there's often a need for intra-page navigation as well;
>consider the WCAG 1.0 document itself.  It is "one page" but includes
>extensive navigation within itself.  So it's possible to have a single
>page that requires navigation mechanisms!

So, a one page site may have internal navigation mechanism. But no other 
navigation mechanisms are required .... Right? Wrong?

But not all one page sites need internal navigation, so what then is the 
"edge case" .... what is the least that must be done  in the most minimum 
circumstances....

>That's why it's better to speak in terms of navigating content, and
>the question then is "what navigation mechanism is appropriate for
>this type of content"?

That is a different question than I was asking. But a good question.


>>When does a site grow big enough (or start out big enough) to need a site 
>>map? an index or table of contents? more than either?
>
>These are information architecture questions and are harder to quantify
>than some things.  Which is why it would be nice if we could say:
>
>      "Checkpoint X.X:  Use a reasonable architecture for your information."


But I'm a web designer (well, I play at it! <grin>) and I'm asking what 
navigational mechanism are needed when  I have one small page .... when my 
page grows .... when my site grows ... etc. I don't know what my 
architecture is or what a reasonable architecture is ...

         We need a "ruler" here .....


>Completely "uncheckable" and thus problematic.  (Or is the "checkable"
>concept problematic?)
>
>>does putting a search engine on a site mean linking to yahoo or google 
>>from a page?
>
>Good point, this is one of the ways that we will be misunderstood by
>web developers, especially inexperienced ones.

When I first started reading this guideline and set of checkpoint, that is 
exactly what I thought it meant .... then, it just seemed to easy for all 
the words going into it .... so I rethought, and realized it musta meant a 
search engine of just that site ... and I remembered finding them on sites 
and deciding they were utterly useless every time and I'd never put one on 
a site I made .... <grin>


>>         What is involved in adding a search engine to a site? Do you buy 
>> one and hook it up? Do you have to make one from scratch? Sorry if these 
>> questions are terribly naive.
>>                                                 Anne
>
>No, these are good questions.
>
>There are several ways to make a search engine for a site:

Kynn, thanks for your excellent reply. I will write you offlist with some 
specific questions I have on the mess of my personal sites conglomerate ...

                                                 Anne

Received on Monday, 30 July 2001 17:57:29 UTC