Re: Proposed changes to Guideline 7

I think that we need in the introduction to this section information on the
following navigation concepts:

Sequential
Direct
Searching
Tree navigation

The introduction would summarize the adavantages and disadvantages for
different types of users and task situations.  This would high light the
major techniques that we have discussed during the past year without
necessarily burying the concepts in the techniques document or creating
long lists of checkpoints.

>1) Merge 7.4 and 7.5.
>   Proposed text: 
>      "Allow the user to navigate all active elements in the document."
>   Proposed Priority: 2. 
>   Techniques: sequential, direct, search, etc.

JRG: Agree

>
>2) Delete 7.6 (Allow the user to search for active elements).
>

JRG: Agree

>3) I propose that we leave 7.7 (text search) and 7.8 
>   (document tree navigation). However, several issues
>   persist about searching:

JRG: I think that the navigation of the document tree is just one
techniques and that it we should just have one checkpoint stating:
"Allow the user to navigate all elements in the document."
Priority: 1

The tree navigation would be described as one way to acheive this.   

>
>   a) Do we search on the document source or rendered content?
>      At the teleconf, the Working Group expressed consensus that
>      searching should be on rendered content only (recall: rendered
>      does not mean only that which is in the viewport, but the
>      entire document as rendered).

JRG: I think we say the text content of elements.  With scripting some text
content may not be rendered unless the user takes acton or turns off
support for style sheets.

>
>   b) Do we search on (some or all) 
>      attribute values (or even attribute names)? 
>      Attributes used to specify alternative content are of
>      particular interest. 

JRG: I think this just a more advanced searching function.  The highest
priority would be attributes like: ALT, SUMMARY, TITLE.  When you get past
those your talking about a very small number of people who would understand
the concept of what they were doing.  

The only other major technique that I think fits here, is Denis Ansons
proposal of move to next thing like this.

>
>      There is a checkpoint that already ensures that UAs 
>      provide access to this content (6.3), which I assume means
>      that it's somehow rendered. Which means that it would be
>      covered by checkpoint 7.7.
>
>      I don't see that searching on attribute names would
>      reduce barriers to accessibility.
>
>      I propose, therefore, not to restore a checkpoint on searching
>      attribute values.
>
>
>Related questions:
>
>- Should we add a checkpoint about navigating all elements?
>  Some thoughts:

JRG: see above comments

>
>   a) This may not be necessary since Checkpoint 7.8 
>      (document tree navigation) would allow this. 
>
>      ISSUE: We talk about navigating the document tree
>             which I assume means the source tree. However,
>             we talk about searching the rendering structure.
>             The rendering structure may not be "tree-shaped"
>             and contains information that may not come from the
>             source tree (e.g., content generated by style sheets,
>             numbers in numbered lists, etc.).  What exactly
>             do we mean by navigating the document tree?
>
>  b) Navigating all elements feels like a technique to me (for
>     accessing/skipping information more quickly). I could imagine
>     two (Pri 3) checkpoints for dependent user agents:
>
>     i) Allow users to navigate elements in a document.    
>    ii) Allow users to configure which element types they wish to
>        navigate. This already exists as checkpoint 2.4 and is meant
>        to apply to all navigation checkpoints. However, it's utility
>        would be made more evident with a general checkpoint about
>        navigating elements.
>
>  c) Why sequential navigation of all elements and not direct
>     navigation? Is sequential navigation of all elements more
>beneficial
>     (or just more prevalent/easier to implement/)?
>      
> - Ian
>
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/1999AprJun/0205.html
>
>-- 
>Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
> 
Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street
Champaign, IL 61820

Voice: 217-244-5870
Fax: 217-333-0248
E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
WWW:	http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
	http://www.als.uiuc.edu/InfoTechAccess

Received on Friday, 18 June 1999 10:51:03 UTC