Re: Linking from guidelines to techniques

I'd like to highlight that a mock-up for Guideline 1.1 is at 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2004/04/links-from-wcag.html#Option5
It is easiest to look at the html than to paste the text here.
--wendy

At 01:50 PM 4/29/2004, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:

>Hello,
>
>In the fall of 2003, the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) and the 
>American Institutes for Research (AIR) conducted a series of usability 
>tests of the WAI Web site: http://www.w3c.org/wai/.  The AIR report is 
>available [1].  Specific for this discussion, I highly recommend that you 
>read "Key Findings." [2]
>
>On Wednesday's Techniques Task Force teleconference, several of us took an 
>action item to create a prototype to demonstrate linking from guidelines 
>and success criteria to the techniques gateway and then from the gateway 
>to the technology-specifics (David, Michael, Ben, Tom, Chris, and me).  In 
>this discussion it also became clear to us that we need to separate the 
>"traffic cop" functionality of the techniques gateway from the general, 
>non-technology-specific techniques (similar to the WCAG 1.0 approach where 
>we had Techniques for WCAG 1.0 [3] as "traffic cop" and Core Techniques 
>for WCAG 1.0 [4] for non-technology-specific techniques).
>
>Yesterday, Shawn and I discussed a mock-up of various options of linking 
>from Guidelines/success criteria to techniques.  Option 5 [5] is a result 
>of this discussion and attempts to address the following factors that were 
>noticed during the AIR usability testing:
>
>1. When looking for "how to" information, people were looking for links 
>that said, "how to" or "example."  The links marked "Technique for 
>Checkpoint..." did not trigger an association with the material they were 
>looking for.
>
>2. Most people are not familiar with the numbering scheme. i.e., most 
>people do not refer to "Checkpoint 1.1" they think in terms of "provide 
>text equivalents."  A link that says, "Techniques for Checkpoint 1.1" does 
>not trigger an association with "how to" information for this checkpoint - 
>it doesn't have any "scent." [6,7]
>
>3.  In WCAG 1.0, there are 65 links of the form, "Techniques for 
>Checkpoint X.Y."  These links could be ignored because they don't 
>obviously provide new or related information.
>
>(Shawn - feel free to add additional thoughts or clarify any of these)
>
>Thus, it seems less an issue of formatting the links and more an issue of 
>writing good link text.
>
>Thoughts?
>--wendy
>
>[1] <http://www.air.org/concord/wai/index.html>
>[2] <http://www.air.org/concord/wai/findings.html#keyfindings>
>[3] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-WCAG10-TECHS-20000920/>
>[4] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-WCAG10-CORE-TECHS-20000920/>
>[5] <http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2004/04/links-from-wcag.html#Option5>
>[6] <http://www.ddj.com/documents/s=3110/nam1012433977/>
>[7] 
><http://www.acm.org/turing/sigs/sigchi/chi95/Electronic/documnts/papers/ppp_bdy.htm>
>
>--
>wendy a chisholm
>world wide web consortium
>web accessibility initiative
>http://www.w3.org/WAI/
>/--

-- 
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
http://www.w3.org/WAI/
/--

Received on Thursday, 29 April 2004 13:55:55 UTC