[w3c-wai-ig] <none>

Subject: Re: accessible navigation
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 00:26:01 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000

"David Poehlman" <poehlman1@comcast.net>
> 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.

Yes, but you also have to take into account the users who haven't got
small displays, and for these if the link text is so confusing as to not
be understandable, I can't see how either accessibility or usability has
improved, and if the links "do nothing" (i.e. when the viewport is large
enough that there's no scrolling) then they'll be extremely confusing.
Equally I don't find any use of them when using either of my PDA's, but I
can appreciate others may, particularly for more character cell / voice
agents.

All I am asking for is for the people who say it's a good idea, to provide
examples of how to do it! what link text is not going to confuse?  As far
as I can see sensible links to _content_ repeated at the end of a document
can be useful, random links with text you have to learn meaning of anew on
each website you visit isn't.

If navigation is at the start of the document, a "to navigation" link I
don't see the point of, going back to the start of a document is done
extremely well by UA's in a mechanism the user will be used to.  For a
link to
content rather than just the obscure "back to content" or anything similar
as has been suggested by some, why not use what the actual content is as
you would when choosing any other link text, you only then have the
problem of ensuring the user realises it's within the same html document.

Jim.

Received on Friday, 12 July 2002 19:26:08 UTC