Thread Subject: Re: Bypassing content.

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Mon, Jun 11 2007 8:40 AM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: Andrew Kirkpatrick: "Re: Bypassing content."
• Previous message in thread: Barrett, Don: "Re: Bypassing content."
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

No, but we can't make this technique not sufficient by requiring that
the solution needs to visible either?
AWK

> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Barrett, Don
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:31 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Bypassing content.
>
> Can we really require developers to use heading structures on
> all pages just so we can satisfy the programmatically
> determinable aspect of the site?
>
>
> Don Barrett
> Section 508 Coordinator
> U.S. Department of Education
> (202)-205-8245
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:29 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Bypassing content.
>
> Allen,
> Some methods to meet this requirement might not be visible -
> for example, providing a heading structure that allows users
> to navigate to different areas of the content. I don't think
> that we should be think just about "skip navigation" links.
>
> AWK
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> > Hoffman, Allen
> > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 9:33 AM
> > To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Bypassing content.
> >
> > Something we have missed in our language is that the method
> must also
> > be visible. This is so often overlooked, or intentionally
> not wanted
> > that it MUST be said.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> > Travis Roth
> > Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 6:49 PM
> > To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Bypassing content.
> >
> > The skipping of groups of links, such as navigational
> links, is also
> > beneficial to other keyboard users who cannot use a mouse
> but also do
> > not use a screen reader.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> > Sailesh Panchang
> > Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 2:02 PM
> > To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Bypassing content.
> >
> >
> > This requirement is primarily designed to help users of
> screen reading
>
> > software.
> > User agents including assistive technologies provide
> ability to jump
> > to different elements (eg. lists, tables, frames,) on a page if
> > structural markup is used. Structural markup for tables, headings
> > lists, etc. is required by Para (g) under
> > 6.1 that reads "Information and relationships conveyed through
> > presentation shall be programmatically determinable, and
> notification
> > of changes to these is available to...". So using structural markup
> > facilitates AT to skip over blocks / skip to desired block.
> > Therefore I believe the skip block requirement being debated over
> > predominantly applies to navigational links. This was the intent of
> > the
> > 2001
> > S508 standards too.
> > Note that when groups of links are placed in a list or
> frame, etc. a
> > mechanism to skip over them is available to screen reader users- an
> > explicit skip nav link is not needed.
> >
> > Conclusion: So I think the focus should just be "group" of
> > navigational links for the skipping over requirement.
> > Consider requirement of the word "repetitive" too.
> >
> > Sailesh Panchang
> > Senior Accessibility Engineer
> > Deque Systems Inc. (www.deque.com)
> > 11130 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite #140, Reston VA 20191
> > Phone: 703-225-0380 (ext 105)
> > E-mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> > Hoffman, Allen
> > Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 1:28 PM
> > To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Bypassing content.
> >
> > Hmmm, thinking cap on.
> >
> > I am not convinced "logical tab order" is so difficult to
> convert to
> > specification/standard format, and am not convinced that this one
> > isn't either, yet.
> >
> > Web pages that are coded to:
> > allow correct keyboard operation;
> > associate header/cell information;
> > expose control element information;
> > generally can meet this repetitive navigation requirement, but
> could
> > still have block of content to navigate through.
> >
> > Screen readers now generally do this by either using algorithms to
> > evaluate pages for repetitive int3erface elements, or by
> allowing the
> > user to hit t to jump to next table, h for next header, or other
> > letters for other element types to jump through. To allow this
> > functionality what is important is to use consistent
> tagging of blocks
>
> > so that, for example, when you hit <next
> > whatever> it doesn't actually skip extra content, or skip in to the
> > whatever> middle
> > of the current block.
> >
> > Imagine:
> >
> > header: text.
> > header: text.
> > table: information.
> > header: text.
> > unordered list: information
> > header: text
> > table: links.
> >
> > What command would one use to jump from "block" to block without a
> > specific consistent identifier being used for the screen reader to
> > grab on to and pick up the next part of the page to read?
> >
> >
> > I'm just writing this to give us all food for thought as we try and
> > finalize this requirement. thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of Peter
> > Wallack
> > Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 1:13 PM
> > To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > 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: Andrew Kirkpatrick: "Re: Bypassing content."
• Previous message in Thread: Barrett, Don: "Re: Bypassing content."