- From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce_Bailey@ed.gov>
- Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 10:06:20 -0400
- To: "'Ian Jacobs'" <ij@w3.org>
- Cc: "'site-comments@w3.org'" <site-comments@w3.org>, "'w3c-wai-ig@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Ian, I 'm responding to a combining of a couple of your earlier messages... >> Seems to me they violate (P2) Checkpoint 5.3: Do not use tables for layout >> unless the table makes sense when linearized. >> How is [NavBar] [W3C Links: A to Z] [News and Content] [More Links and >> Search] [NavBar] a logical reading order? > That's precisely the order of objects on the page! Right, which was my point. Something like: [Welcome] [PageNavBar] [Search] [News and Content] [More Links] [W3C Links: A to Z] [BriefSiteNavBar] would have made more sense. Kynn Barlett picked up on that, and several exchanges followed... Anyway, in your (incredibly tolerant) discussion with Jonathan Chetwynd, I learned that your page was "Lynx Enhanced": > Please try not to read too much into the design. We use a LINK > element at the top so that Lynx users will have access to the > list of links, or the news, or the links to other pages, or the > search box. I missed this (which teaches me to complain about a page without trying it for real with Lynx). My apologies. That piece of engineering is important, and pretty much nullifies my most serious complaint. Are you considering adding similar accommodations for users of JAWS/IE? (I would suggest adding two or three intra-page links to the first [NavBar]). I also agree that adding that one sentence introduction (and link) has improved the page. Regular users can spare the two or three lines. For what it is worth I rescind any complaint about the page not being double A. You have convinced me that my opinion was mistaken! Now, how about going for AAA? Sincerely, Bruce Bailey
Received on Monday, 28 August 2000 10:03:18 UTC