W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2001

RE: Skipping navigation tactics

From: Nouiouat, Athmane <athmane.nouiouat@sap.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 08:32:35 +0200
Message-ID: <544E170B48C9D3118A3F00508B6F534E037289C0@usphlx18>
To: "'jim@jimthatcher.com'" <jim@jimthatcher.com>, Graham Oliver <graham_oliver@yahoo.com>, Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>, Davey Leslie <davey@inx-jp.org>
Cc: Kelly Ford <kelly@kellford.com>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Hi,

What about switch for accessibility? For example the first home-page would
ask the user if they
want Full-WAI-accesibility if so send them displays with accessibility
features, if they don't
display to them withoout any worry. If the site is carefully designed, one
can assume, that stitically
(or dynamically with ASP/JSP) two versions of the site (1 for accessiblity
the other without) is achievable!
athmane  

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Thatcher [mailto:thatch@attglobal.net]
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 5:40 PM
To: Graham Oliver; Charles McCathieNevile; Davey Leslie
Cc: Kelly Ford; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: Skipping navigation tactics


Hi there,

It's easy for web access related sites or sites that are specifically
disabilities related like www.acb.org, where the skip navigation started, to
have visible skip navigation links. But Commercial sites are not willing
(for good reason) to have such a link clutter their design, e.g. www.ibm.com
and www.cnn.com (also www.assistivetech.net and www.firstgov.gov). The links
are there for blind users. There is no reason for them to be visible. There
are good reasons for having them not visible - they don't clutter the view
for people who look at the screen. It is "clutter" more than pixel clutter.
It is user interface clutter. "What does that link do," a sighted user
worries.

What is the relevance of the to-2008 sight
(http://www.to-2008.com/english/accessibility.asp). Did you think they had
links to skip navigation?

Jim
jim@jimthatcher.com
Accessibility Consulting
http://jimthatcher.com
512-306-0931

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Graham Oliver
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2001 7:12 PM
To: Charles McCathieNevile; Davey Leslie
Cc: Kelly Ford; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Skipping navigation tactics


I am not really in favour of hiding the link, have a
look at this page.

http://www.to-2008.com/english/accessibility.asp

I can't find the skip links in the html, it may be
there but that's one of the problems, it becomes
harder to test.

I like what they do on the HTML Writers Guild site,
putting the skip links on the top right rather than
the top left, it's easier to ignore then for people
who don't want/need to use it.



   Charles McCathieNevile  wrote: Yes. I am a visual
user, but have problems from time to time withusing
amouse. So hiding things too much is annoying. (On the
other hand, things comeup in the tabbing order, so as
long as there is a focus that is clearlyvisible I know
I have hit a link and just need to check the status
bar tofind out what is going on. I guess that's less
cool if you're usingmagnification. Any
thoughts?chaalsOn Wed, 21 Mar 2001, Davey Leslie
wrote:I wonder if hiding the "skip links" from graphic
browsers--which I've doneon a couple of sites with the
invisible gif trick--is really a good idea.I'm
starting to have second and third thoughts about it.
What about folkswho can't use a mouse? Isn't the "skip
links" useful for them?Just wondering...Davey Leslie--
Charles McCathieNevile
http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134
136W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +1 617 258 5999Location: 21
Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia(or W3C
INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia
Antipolis Cedex, France)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Received on Sunday, 8 April 2001 02:33:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:54 GMT