- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2004 18:17:05 +1000
- To: Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Gregg Vanderheiden writes: > > I think the problem with this one was that not all content has a 'page'. So > there was a question of how it would have a 'title'. Some pages were > dynamic and it wasn't clear how much of the page had to change before the > title of the page should be changed. And it if were a very variable page, > how would the titles be changed to all be unique and meaningful. > I regard this as the main problem with the proposal. That all documents should have a title is a testable and achievable requirement, but I have problems with the concept of a "page", especially in more complex and dynamic user interfaces or where the content is being split automatically depending on the characteristics of the delivery context. For example the division into "pages" will be different according to whether the destination is a mobile device or a graphical workstation. If the destination is a printer then of course the term "page" can be taken quite literally unless it is carefully defined. There are conditions under which the requirement can work. If I have a collection of logically structured documents that will be split into smaller or larger "pages" according to the output device, then I can specify a rule, e.g., use the next highest sub-heading as the page title, or always use the title of the document as the page title, etc., either of which may or may not be actually helpful to the end-user given the nature of the document and how it is structured. In sum, document titles are fine; something should be said about orientation and navigation in user interfaces; and there are major difficulties with "page" outside the context of non-dynamically-generated HTML.
Received on Wednesday, 7 July 2004 04:17:08 UTC