Thread Subject: Re: Bypassing content.

From: Barrett, Don
Date: Mon, Jun 11 2007 7:55 AM

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

Not, it is not.


Don Barrett
Section 508 Coordinator
U.S. Department of Education
(202)-205-8245
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =




_____

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andrew
Kirkpatrick
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:12 AM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Bypassing content.


I'm willing to bet that most "repetitive content" is not completely
repetitive. We should be careful about how we define this - for
example, if the block of content is a navigation bar and when you click
on a link in that navigation bar you get a page that has almost the same
navigation bar, except that there is some small difference, such as a
different set of subnavigation links that are in view or something
similar. Is that still repetitive?

AWK


_____

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
Hoffman, Allen
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:06 AM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Bypassing content.


I think we are very close to two distinct functionalities. They
are just very closely related.

it might be a good idea to consider as a recommendation adding
the extra functional requirement as a separate one after all. i can see
merit in that approach.



Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303



_____

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter
Wallack
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 5:21 PM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Bypassing content.


It seems to me we're all debating two different concepts, both
of which are perfectly legitimate:


* the ability to bypass repetitive content
* the ability to jump to blocks of content

Solving the latter one would probably suffice to solve the
former, though not necessarily optimally. The current 508 only addresses
the first issue. So the big question is: are we merely refining the
current standard, or proposing an additional concept?

Peter Wallack
Accessibility Program Director
Oracle Corporation


David Poehlman wrote:

I don't like bypass.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Wallack" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Bypassing content.


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: Sean Hayes: "Re: Bypassing content."
• Previous message in Thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: Bypassing content."