RE: REF 2.4b - a second required success criteria

You are correct,
It does not have anything to do with Miller's 7 +/- 2 paper.

And the question of the right number is also tough.   It is really kind of a
preference thing.

Where there seems to be agreement is - 

1 - Skip link link that jumps over a few links is more work and confusion
than it is worth.

2 - Large numbers of repetitive links is  a problem.

3 - Some screen readers allow skipping to the first header -- so you can use
this.  But it doesn't work if there isn't a header after the links.   And
this isn't a help for people who have physical disabilities and don't use
screen readers.

4 - For those who can see, a page down and the tab up or down can be used
sometimes but not usually   since that goes too far.
 
How to fix it..... or where to set the trigger....

6 was suggested.   Also 5 and 7.   

Any other summative thoughts?


Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Giorgio Brajnik
Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 6:04 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: REF 2.4b - a second required success criteria


Where does the seven comes from? Why 7 and not 5?
I don't think it has anything to do with Miller's 7 +/- 2 paper on short
memory. 

For example why shouldn't this apply to any group of links (where a
group may be as small 3, 4)? We could define the 'links group'  in
terms of performance: 

- how long does it take to perceive and interpret a 'skip links'
  button and activate it?  
versus
- how long does it take to perceive and interpret each link in a
  group, and tab over it?

If the link group is small enough that the time needed to skip over it
is higher than the time needed to tab through its links, then the
group size is too small.
 
John: do you think this might be a good rationale on how to determine
the group size to be mentioned in the success criterion?

LIFT detects navbars as small as 3 and suggests to wrap them within a
'skip links' button and named anchor. How would this behavior be
interpreted with respect to the suggested success criterion?


   Giorgio

John said:

  > Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 16:22:21 -0500
  > From: "John M Slatin" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
  > I agree that this is really important.  I'd propose a small editorial
  > change in the wording as well as a slight change in the actual criterion
  > (I'd like the requirement to be triggered when any group of links
  > includes 7 or more links, rather than just 8 or more...):
  >  
  > Proposed rewording (Gregg's original proposal is below for reference):
  >  
  > "#2 Users are able to skip over navigational bars or other groups of
  > seven or more links when reading with a synthesizer or navigating using
  > keyboard.

Received on Thursday, 17 July 2003 12:28:52 UTC