RE: REF 2.4b - a second required success criteria

"Skip navigation" is provided for a collection of 5 or more repetative
links and/or graphics (such as a navigation bar or banner) that most
often appear at the top of the page, but may be located along the page
margin.

A "Skip Link" is provided for ASCII art.

Cheers,

Chris Brainerd
Instructional Designer
Real Choices ACCESS
Center on Disability Studies
University of Hawaii
Chris.brainerd@cds.hawaii.edu
808-956-9356

-----Original Message-----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 6:29 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: 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 Monday, 21 July 2003 17:50:39 UTC