- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 00:02:38 -0400 (EDT)
- To: WAI UA group <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Based on the 31 march document. This is to discharge my renmaining action item from the last teleconference. I think we could dramatically reduce the number of checkpoijnts reqiured - I have come up with the following proposed checkpoints/techniques for 6.2 checkpoint: P1 Allow the user to navigate among active elements definition: any element which has some associated event or action - examples are links, form controls, and elements which trigger events. checkpoint: P1 Allow the user to navigate table cells sequentially across a row or up and down a column. This requirement applies to non-visual browsers, but the capacity needs to be exported via interfaces (see current 7.2) Checkpoint: P2 Allow the user to navigate a document via its structure Techniques: Allow the user to walk a tree of the elements (eg DOM). This would include navigating from form to form, table to table, navigating (in HTML) all the headers of a document). There are two ways to go in a tree - up and down the tree (parent to child) or across (sibling to sibling). Block level elements in HTML are usually siblings - paragraphs, headings, lists, etc are siblings of the BODY. XML will generally provide more structure - second level headings would be children of first level headings, etc. Table cells are also included here because they are elements, but this is a P2 checkpoint. Allow the user to walk an outline tree or "semantic tree" constructed from an HTML document in which H3 elements are treated as children of H2 elements, etc. Notes: It is possible that the two techniques could be drawn into seperate checkpoints but I don't really see the need. The only case I can think of where the second technique would rate as a P2 checkpoint is moving from cell to cell in columns (which is not supported by DOM) which is P1 in most cases. Otherwise only one of these techniques is really P2 and teh other becomes P3. Given the requirement to implement the DOM, supporting walking of the DOM tree is the obvious choice for implementers, but it is not the only possible approach. (It is probably more important to Authoring Tools, where manipulation of the DOM is a standard activity). Charles McCN --Charles McCathieNevile mailto:charles@w3.org phone: +1 617 258 0992 http://www.w3.org/People/Charles W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI MIT/LCS - 545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139, USA
Received on Wednesday, 14 April 1999 00:02:40 UTC