- From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@comcast.net>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 16:36:35 -0400
- To: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>, W3c-Wai-Ig <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
yes the words are important, but we are dealing with a small window because as has been pointed out in earlier messages, we are taking into account, pdas, screen enlargement, refreshable braille displays, anything that requires a lot of scrolling to fit what you want to view into your viewing window. I have observed viewing windows as small as one word at a time. Yes, there are mechanisms for providing navigation in some instances built in but in many there are not and while I agree that the words need to be carefully chosen, we must take this into account when designing our content sets. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Ley" <jim@jibbering.com> To: "W3c-Wai-Ig" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 10:15 AM Subject: Re: accessible navigation "David Poehlman" <poehlman1@comcast.net> > I agree and back to contant or back to navigation should be sufficient. > remember, we are dealing here with a small window where the content > might not be displayed. It is a tough conundrum. We're not dealing with a small window at all, we're dealing with an HTML document... 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, 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.) I don't have any solutions to this unfortunately. In documents like the W3's recommendations, it's probably okay, you have _contents_ etc. which you can link to as _contents_ but using vague terms like "to navigation" and "to content" I find very confusing about where it's likely to take me. Jim.
Received on Friday, 12 July 2002 16:37:12 UTC