Thread Subject: Re: Bypassing content.

From: Brad Hodges
Date: Mon, Jun 11 2007 10:30 AM

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

Greetings:

While invisible strategies may be of use in some instances, strategies
which use the native structure to facilitate nonvisual navigation in the
same way these same elements support visual navigation are clearly
preferable.

At the same time it should be noted that skip nav links often do not
work properly.

Brad


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David
Poehlman
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 11:23 AM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Bypassing content.

I think the method should be visible and service navigation rather than
a special case of navigation.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Kirkpatrick" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:29 AM
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: Sailesh Panchang: "Re: Bypassing content."
• Previous message in Thread: Andrew Kirkpatrick: "Re: Bypassing content."