Thread Subject: Re: Bypassing content.

From: Peter Wallack
Date: Fri, Jun 08 2007 11:15 AM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: Peter Wallack: "Re: Bypassing content."
• Previous message in thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: Bypassing content."
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Allen --
I like your explanation of the intent of this standard far better than
the current wording. I'm not at all keen on the phrase 'repeated on
multiple web pages' as that seems more directed toward a situation where
the user is taking a linear path through a site, which is often not the
case. How about simply:

"A mechanism shall be available to bypass blocks of content"

leaving us only to haggle over the best wording for 'block of content',
which is a concept that I think we all intrinsically understand but we'd
like something a bit more scientific.

As for testability, this probably is no more testable than having a tab
sequence that is 'logical'. This just takes it to one level higher:
having a logical division of blocks of content that you can sequence
through.

Peter Wallack
Accessibility Program Director
Oracle Corporation



Hoffman, Allen wrote:
> This one is intended to allow people to basically use things like
> headers to jump from each block to the next quickly. I'm not convinced
> this language is exactly right, or better than the original
> CFR1194.22(o) either. it is testable, but certainly is not easy to test
> in an automated fashion.
>
> I have been trying to work out testing algorithm to count the number of
> links from start of page to each link on a page, take the average
> link-count, and then by re-analyzing the links in variations of
> sequence, determine if shorter paths indeed exist, and where to set
> upper and lower boundaries on the tests to get the answer, is there a
> way to shorten the link path. if anyone can put that into a provision
> we would have a testable check on lowering "link" or "tab" path. The
> reason "block of content" is good is that it doesn't really matter what
> stuff one has to skip over to get past with the voice, the important
> factors is to be able to skip it quickly when needed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Sean
> Hayes
> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 11:49 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Bypassing content.
>
> I have a slight issue on the testability of : "A mechanism shall be
> available to bypass blocks of content that are repeated on multiple Web
> pages."
>
> What exactly constitutes a 'block of content'?
>
> Also if the repeated content is the last thing on the page, is a bypass
> still necessary? If so, where should it bypass too?
>
> Sean Hayes
> Standards and Policy Team
> Corporate Accessibility Group
> Microsoft
> Phone:
> mob +44 7977 455002
> office +44 117 9719730
>

• Next message in Thread: Peter Wallack: "Re: Bypassing content."
• Previous message in Thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: Bypassing content."