W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2005

Re: Copywriting for Screenreaders (was Alt text for URL's)

From: david poehlman <david.poehlman@handsontechnologeyes.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 11:55:00 -0500
Message-ID: <009001c512b5$ec336960$6401a8c0@DAVIDPC>
To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

Ok,  I will say it tis way.  Ie needs skip nav links, lynx does not need 
them  I do not find them to be usefull in lynx because most often, they only 
take me to a different set of links.  As for mark up, I ave no trouble as I 
have said with good internal linking structure.  Skip nav is not necessary 
if te linking structure is well designed.  Wat you are calling skip nav is 
just it seems to me good practice if the site is well designed.  What I 
object to is bad design that seeks to cover its self with acks like this.

Johnnie Apple Seed
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
To: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: Copywriting for Screenreaders (was Alt text for URL's)

david poehlman wrote:
> Indeed they do not but they also cannot use skip nav

How can they not use them? They're simply links to internal anchors or
fragment identifiers. On my work site www.salford.ac.uk I've defined a
crude "skip to the content" link...and I find myself using it a lot when
navigating in lynx.

> Tis is were internal anchors come in but calling them
> something and using skip nav as a hack for bad structure is not good
> structure.

Maybe I'm being dense, but I still fail to see the evil inherent in
providing internal anchors

<a name="content"></a>

and then offering a link to "skip" to those anchors

<a href="#content" ...>skip to main content</a>

Are you suggesting to just provide anchors, without links pointing to
them (and letting the browser work out a way of exposing internal
anchors to the user somehow)?

I'm not being argumentative, simply trying to understand your point...

Patrick H. Lauke
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
Received on Monday, 14 February 2005 16:55:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:31 UTC