W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2002

RE: accessible navigation

From: Andrew Johns <andrew.johns@jkd.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 15:45:51 +0100
Message-ID: <FDFC0668A850D246BC4231715D94904E263C8E@uranus.jkd.co.uk>
To: "W3c-Wai-Ig" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

> We're not dealing with a small window at all, we're dealing with an HTML
> document...

But from a UA point of view, the idea is to make your HTML documents usable and accessible in anything from a large window on a full size monitor, to a small window on a PDA.  So the above statement SHOULD be taken into consideration.

> If it says back to content or back to navigation I would expect it to go
> to another page with content and/or navigation I wouldn't expect it to be
> within the same document, I don't see why

So what is the point of having bookmarks in the W3C Spec then? When I see a link, the title or text description of the link is *usually* enough to tell me what it's going to do - e.g. a link to a related document or a bookmark to a point somewhere on the existing page.

> Also surely back is a problematical word as it implies you've been there before - which isn't
> guaranteed at all (even within the same document you could've arrived at
>the content portion missing the navigation.)

So, what we're really arguing here now is not whether to include "back to" links or not, but rather, what text to put as the link description which would make it obvious as to where exactly it is going to link to.  IMO it is an important feature of accessibility AND usability, even for those who are sighted.  More so if it is a long page of text.


Received on Friday, 12 July 2002 10:45:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:36:10 UTC